Gaz-a-Lago

HUH? You ask I answer and you divert to deflect and change the narrative? You do not dictate the discussion, do I take this stance everywhere else? What the crap does that have to do with the question you asked and I answered? How long is this stance going to take? It will take until the earth is destroyed as it has existed since the two groups first interacted like 3000 years ago.

yup the man from Arizona is a personal jab, there is no need for this comment. My remark about stomp threads in the box is based on fact and truth, this has been the case with you for over a decade, I stated fact.

@wallstreetcappers

 HUH? You ask I answer and you divert to deflect and change the narrative? You do not dictate the discussion

Sure, I can dictate it.  I do this by asking questions for clarification on things you stated.

You did not answer them at all; you simper deflected.

@wallstreetcappers

 What the crap does that have to do with the question you asked and I answered?

Quite a bit actually.  I would think reasonable folks would infer this.

@ABooksNightmare

 If your purpose is to antagonize then that will not be allowed to continue. I also said beat someone to a coma, why would someone beat someone into a coma? Do I need more examples of one sided destruction or was that use of an example not understood?

Here is another one for you, a thug pulverizes you for looking at his girlfriend and trots you over to the edge of a 5 story building holding on to your collar threatening to drop you to your death and says "do you accept my terms"? I can do a few more if you like...

@wallstreetcappers

 How long is this stance going to take? It will take until the earth is destroyed as it has existed since the two groups first interacted like 3000 years ago.

So, in the meantime you do not even attempt anything?

@wallstreetcappers

 do I take this stance everywhere else?

Yes, this has a lot to do with it. 

If you do not take that stance everywhere with every issue, then how are you picking and choosing?

@Raiders22

 I answered your question and stopped your false generalizations about me, the cornering tactic and there is no purpose to try and change the path so you can try yet again to prove a point. I stated my answer, no reason to shift to a new topic or tangent. 

@wallstreetcappers

No.  You did not.  

Kinda laid that out above...nothing is 100% partisan and clear cut, no analysis is altruistic and final, most all topics and issues have their own variables and deserve their own analysis.

Pretty easy stuff here Raiders.

Apparently not.  Otherwise you could give clear examples of it.

@Raiders22

 Oh sure I did answer, did it agree with you? Well duh no it did not, did I answer ad nauseum yeah I did. If that is not good enough then that is the reality of discussion. You love to ask 100 questions and answer few then tell people they do not answer you as a means of proof of your contention. The sign of someone unable to have a discussion is when the person asks questions to no end and turns a discussion when they are not accomplishing their goal. You have turned this discussion multiple times here because you are erroneously attempting to divert as proof (as you always do). The ability to deflect and divert does not mean you are right or validated or the other person is wrong, when your objective is to wear out the other side with never ending deflection the purpose of discussion is long lost.

Where do you get off telling me I have to prove something to you with examples? You asked a perspective I answer it you divert and demand examples. I am not required to trail your demands and if I do not then "apparently not". This is comical, I do not think and analyze everything in one way with one partisan approach and one size fits all, a conclusion reached about one topic might vary to another based on the variables and content and perspective. Having an open mind and no partisan boundaries makes for more clear and intelligent thought and you obviously are not wired that way and that is fine too. I will not tell you you must be partisan or you are a cheerleader and if you draw a conclusion on one topic then it carries to another especially when no two topics are identical and no two conclusions are identical with varied dynamics.

@wallstreetcappers

 No.  I simply ask a couple of questions and you wandered all over the place like you always do.

Then claim I am trying to corner you.

If you paint yourself into a corner do not blame me for pointing it out.

Some are those are yes or no questions or simple names of folks and places.

You made the statements and are surprised when you get questioned about it?

This is may very, very first example on here of you coming in here just to be partisan.  No substantive discussion in that first post.

You posted it just to rile up folks and take a jab at the guy that started the thread and the folks that commented about it.

That is deceptive.  It is also entirely duplicitous to say you answered questions about something fairly straightforward you made. 

It simply seems that you cannot back it up when you do that.

Maybe if you stayed on topic at a time and focused on addressing that it would be clearer what your answer is.

@wallstreetcappers

 Where do you get off telling me I have to prove something to you with examples?

It is 'not getting off telling you what to do'.

I am simply asking EXACTLY what you are talking about.

How do you do that without clear examples of what you said.

It is not clear when you obfuscate and wander off topic.

@wallstreetcappers

 Having an open mind and no partisan boundaries makes for more clear and intelligent thought and you obviously are not wired that way

This is hilarious that you have already admitted you are not wired this way.  You admit to refusing to research or read anything that opposes your mind that you have already made up on a subject.

Hitler brings peace to Israel .   

Throw enough crap on the wall and you can claim victory this is your approach. I have done exactly what I stated above that you laughed at. I do not approach a topic based on partisan conclusions and many times my personal views are not what I base my conclusions on. This is what I said. Being able to have discussions about subjects which might not fit a personal viewpoint and come to a DIFFERENT conclusion than what your own biases are is a good thing and that is what I do. You really have no idea what my personal in the house views are because I do not bring that as the core of my discussion metrics.

I was sickened by the thread title for many reasons and I stated those, you on the other hand have been trailing me as you usually do to try and tangent me to death asking questions getting answers asking different questions getting answers asking new and unrelated questions to deflect getting answers it never ends. I answer a question and be respectful not steering YOU in a direction. Have I at any time in this multiple page thread demanded that you follow my tangent mindset and turn a topic about the tacky use of Trump cheerleading around a horrible topic of human abuse and destruction into what do I conclude about an UNRELATED concept? I make a position and I stand on it, I have not waivered or changed my issues and position on THIS THREAD. You on the other hand have tried to play spin for multiple pages where discussion no longer exists because it is not about sharing perspectives its about you hen pecking with endless questions intending on deflection and diverting as if that proves something, well it doesnt.

Original topic was tacky crappy Trump cheerleading on a really lousy subject on day 1 of a three thousand year scrape. Nothing happened, nothing to cheer nothing to celebrate there is nothing positive about this and for sure not on day 1 in Jan.