>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in >talk.politics.guns :
>Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - repeat,
>only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one single
>solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
>claims.
Don't lie, Larry. Of course I posted a link.
Of course, you'll pretend you didn't see it, because you're too stupid
to operate a news reader.
>The subject is still Romney's 100%, "Klau Schandenfeude."
Correct. And you still can't
(a) work your newsreader
(b) explain how "100%" and "entire nation" doesn't mean everyone.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
The subject is still Romney's 100%, "Klau Schandenfeude." And the link that you did provide is just Romney stating his 100% without any kind of clarification. That link has no mention whatever as to Romney's inclusion of gays, abortionists, or supporters of the single payer health system. If you really think that Romney's 100% indeed includes gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer health system, then say as much and provide with a link where Romney does include these people in his 100%. You have yet either to make such a statement or to provide such a link.
Indeed - allow me to ask you a very simple "yes" or "no" question: Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer health system in his 100%? Yes or no?
Yet once again...for the eighth time -
- - -
Clearly "Klaus Schandenfreude" truly and honestly believes that Romney and
the GOP embrace and support those PBS folks, hispanics, gays, pro-choice
people, single mothers, the Planned Parenthood people, advocates of the
single payer health system, judicial activists, environmentalists, and
everybody and anybody under the sun. I obviously was mistaken in thinking
that the GOP is the party of exclusion. Romney and the GOP are according to
"Klaus Schandenfreude" instead the party of inclusion. Wow!
Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - repeat,
only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one single
solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
claims.
>>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in >>talk.politics.guns :
>>Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - repeat,
>>only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one single
>>solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
>>claims.
>>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in >>talk.politics.guns :
>>Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - repeat,
>>only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one single
>>solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
>>claims.
>Don't lie, Larry. Of course I posted a link.
>Of course, you'll pretend you didn't see it, because you're too stupid
>to operate a news reader.
[crickets.wav]
>>The subject is still Romney's 100%, "Klau Schandenfeude."
>Correct. And you still can't
>(a) work your newsreader
>(b) explain how "100%" and "entire nation" doesn't mean everyone.
>>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>talk.politics.guns :
>>Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - >>repeat,
>>only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one >>single
>>solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion >>he
>>claims.
You're lying.
Typical liberal.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
The subject is still Romney's 100%, "Klaus Schandenfeude." hmmm...no link from you stating that Romney's 100% includes gays, free choice supporters, and advocates of the single payer health system. No surprise there. Indeed, someone who really believes that Romney's 100% includes gays also really believes everything and anything without clarification. Yet once again...for the ninth time -
- - -
Clearly "Klaus Schandenfreude" truly and honestly believes that Romney and
the GOP embrace and support those PBS folks, hispanics, gays, pro-choice
people, single mothers, the Planned Parenthood people, advocates of the
single payer health system, judicial activists, environmentalists, and
everybody and anybody under the sun. I obviously was mistaken in thinking
that the GOP is the party of exclusion. Romney and the GOP are according to
"Klaus Schandenfreude" instead the party of inclusion. Wow!
Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - repeat,
only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one single
solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
claims.
>>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>talk.politics.guns :
>>Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - >>repeat,
>>only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one >>single
>>solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion >>he
>>claims.
>Don't lie, Larry. Of course I posted a link.
>Of course, you'll pretend you didn't see it, because you're too stupid
>to operate a news reader.
[crickets.wav]
>>The subject is still Romney's 100%, "Klau Schandenfeude."
>Correct. And you still can't
>(a) work your newsreader
>(b) explain how "100%" and "entire nation" doesn't mean everyone.
[crickets.wav]
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
[chuckle] Ask "Klaus Schandenfeude" a simple "Yes" or "No" question and what you get is neither a "Yes" nor a "No" but a response with no text and with my previous email not emasculated, but entirely missing! Clearly my simple question left him speechless and unable to respond at all intelligently.
Allow me to post my question again and let's see how "Klaus Schandenfeude" responds this time around.
- - -
The subject is still Romney's 100%, "Klau Schandenfeude." And the link
that you did provide is just Romney stating his 100% without any kind of
clarification. That link has no mention whatever as to Romney's inclusion
of gays, abortionists, or supporters of the single payer health system. If
you really think that Romney's 100% indeed includes gays, abortionists, and
supporters of the single payer health system, then say as much and provide
with a link where Romney does include these people in his 100%. You have
yet either to make such a statement or to provide such a link.
Indeed - allow me to ask you a very simple "yes" or "no" question: Does
Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer health
system in his 100%? Yes or no?
- - -
Yet once again...for the ninth time -
Clearly "Klaus Schandenfreude" truly and honestly believes that Romney and
the GOP embrace and support those PBS folks, hispanics, gays, pro-choice
people, single mothers, the Planned Parenthood people, advocates of the
single payer health system, judicial activists, environmentalists, and
everybody and anybody under the sun. I obviously was mistaken in thinking
that the GOP is the party of exclusion. Romney and the GOP are according to
"Klaus Schandenfreude" instead the party of inclusion. Wow!
Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - repeat,
only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one single
solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
claims.
>>>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>talk.politics.guns :
>>>Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - >>>repeat,
>>>only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one >>>single
>>>solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion >>>he
>>>claims.
>>>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>talk.politics.guns :
>>>Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - >>>repeat,
>>>only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one >>>single
>>>solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion >>>he
>>>claims.
>>Don't lie, Larry. Of course I posted a link.
>>Of course, you'll pretend you didn't see it, because you're too stupid
>>to operate a news reader.
> [crickets.wav]
>>>The subject is still Romney's 100%, "Klau Schandenfeude."
>>Correct. And you still can't
>>(a) work your newsreader
>>(b) explain how "100%" and "entire nation" doesn't mean everyone.
>> "Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
>> news:j5qda8los17kabnce73fe8lu7a0akjb12u@4ax.com...
>>> "Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>> Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - repeat,
>>> only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one single
>>> solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
>>> claims.
> You're lying.
> Typical liberal.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
This, folks, is the very best that "Klaus Schandenfeude" can do in answer to a very, very simple "Yes" or "No" question - " Does
Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
Amazing that such a simple question renders him literally speechless.
Yet once again...for the tenth time -
- - -
Clearly "Klaus Schandenfreude" truly and honestly believes that Romney and
the GOP embrace and support those PBS folks, hispanics, gays, pro-choice
people, single mothers, the Planned Parenthood people, advocates of the
single payer health system, judicial activists, environmentalists, and
everybody and anybody under the sun. I obviously was mistaken in thinking
that the GOP is the party of exclusion. Romney and the GOP are according to
"Klaus Schandenfreude" instead the party of inclusion. Wow!
Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - repeat,
only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one single
solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
claims.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
The subject is still Romney's 100%, "Klaus Schandenfeude." hmmm...still no link from you stating that Romney's 100% includes gays, free choice supporters, and advocates of the single payer health system. No surprise there. Indeed, someone who really believes that Romney's 100% includes gays also really believes everything and anything without any kind of critical analytical thinking. So - "Klaus Schandenfeude" - let me here ask you the very simple "Yes" or "No" question I asked you elsewhere: - " Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
Will this question here also render you speechless as it did before? It is just a simple "Yes" or "No" question. No elaborate explanation needed.
Yet once again...for the tenth time -
- - -
Clearly "Klaus Schandenfreude" truly and honestly believes that Romney and
the GOP embrace and support those PBS folks, hispanics, gays, pro-choice
people, single mothers, the Planned Parenthood people, advocates of the
single payer health system, judicial activists, environmentalists, and
everybody and anybody under the sun. I obviously was mistaken in thinking
that the GOP is the party of exclusion. Romney and the GOP are according to
"Klaus Schandenfreude" instead the party of inclusion. Wow!
Of course, let it be noted that "Klaus Schandenfeude" relies only - repeat,
only - on his very busy and most loud mouth. He has yet to post one single
solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
claims.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
Actually, I do believe that my very, very simple "Yes" or "No" question has rendered "Klaus Schandenfeude" if not completely dumbfounded, certainly speechless - no AI on his part needed. His last couple of posts were at best muted silence. Perhaps - "max headroom" - you can do better than he in addressing this "Yes" or "No" question, insofar as you also are of the mind that Romney's 100% is all encompassing and all inclusive:
" Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
> " Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single > payer
> health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
Unless you have emperical evidence otherwise, I'm willing to accept 100% means all.
BTW, get a real news client.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
Egads...ducking such a very, very simple "Yes" or "No" question as you did here is not very becoming of you, "max headroom." Allow me to again pose this most simple question to you. No empirical evidence of any kind from anyone anywhere at anytime needed for you to respond either "Yes" or "No" to this question.
" Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer
health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
Now are you again going to duck without answering "Yes" or "No"?
> " Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single > payer
> health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"...
He said 100%. Do you have empirical evidence he meant otherwise?
BTW, get a real news client.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
By god - ducked again. You do have a real problem answering simple "Yes" or "No" questions, don't you "max headroom". What's the problem? This question too difficult for you to answer? Your English comprehension not good enough to be able to answer this "Yes" or "No" question? If so, why don't you just flip a coin? Heads, yes; tails, no. Seems as though that is about as good as you can get with this question. Yet once again -
" Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer
health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>He has yet to post one single
>solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
>claims.
>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>" Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer
>health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
If you read what I posted-- which you didn't because it proved you to
be a liar-- you would see that it included everyone.
Even dumb ass leftists who are too fundamentally stupid to use a news
reader correctly.
>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>He has yet to post one single
>solitary itsy bitsy link/reference/citation to support the GOP inclusion he
>claims.
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k8a3si$lq0$1@dont-email.me...
> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:k89soi$q35$1@dont-email.me: >> " Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer
>> health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"...
> He said 100%. Do you have empirical evidence he meant otherwise?
>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in >talk.politics.guns :
>" Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single >payer
>health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
If you read what I posted-- which you didn't because it proved you to
be a liar-- you would see that it included everyone.
Even dumb ass leftists who are too fundamentally stupid to use a news
reader correctly.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
uh huh - yet another evader of a very simple "Yes" or "No" question. You Romney guys certainly show all here that you can't answer a very, very simple "Yes" or "No" question. What's with you Romney guys having so much trouble answering such a simple question? Reading comprehension problems with English? Insufficient intellectual problems with "Yes" vs "No"? Too much brain indoctrination? Inability to make your own decision? At any rate for whatever reason, it is clear you guys can't answer my question:
" Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
with a simple "Yes" or "No." So let me pose another very simple "Yes" or "No" question:
Does your "everyone" include gays, free choice folks, and supporters of the single payer health system? Yes or no?
Now are you going to duck this one without a "Yes" or a "No" as well?
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k8a3si$lq0$1@dont-email.me...
> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:k89soi$q35$1@dont-email.me: >> " Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single >> payer
>> health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"...
> He said 100%. Do you have empirical evidence he meant otherwise?
[crickets.wav]
> BTW, get a real news client.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
By gum - "max headroom" is struck speechless when asked a very, very simple "Yes" or "No" question. What's with these Romney guys that they don't have enough brain power to answer such a simple, direct question? Can't they think for themselves? Do they have to consult the ranking Romney guy in the neighborhood whether to answer "Yes" or "No" ? Maybe they need to consult with their wives/girlfriends? Whatever the reason, they, folks, are very evasive in answering "Yes" or "No" to such a very simple question. Here again is the question that "max headroom" ducked and for whatever reason is not able to answer "Yes" or "No":
"Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
ho hum...just another non sequitur from "Klaus Schadenfreude." Clearly you have to expect these red herrings from the Romney folks sooner or later. Sooner just arrived.
>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>"Does Romney include gays, abortionists, and supporters of the single payer >health system in his 100%? Yes or no?"
Asked and answered. How many times do you need an answer- or
instructions on how to properly operate your news reader- before you
wise up?
