Mission Accomplished!

Then you don't read very well.... or your reader doesn't read to you very well. I don't snark, I detail but you just don't read them. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

snick

Then you don't read very well.... or your reader doesn't read to you very well. .... but you just don't read them. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That task is challenging for him ..

........... his eyes are closed and mouth open obsessively.

If he can't find a "cut and paste" he's just ....

... hot, stinky air with no substance.

And then there is that ..... comprehension deficiency of which he suffers.

snick Originally Posted by bigtex

That was an echo from days past.

JDIdiot, we know that you just want to hate Barack H. Obama for some reason. Why is that? You don't really articulate this hate, but we can see it plainly. Originally Posted by bigtex

First, does it give you some legitimacy to use the "collective" word "we"?

Do you really think so? Or are you including all of your multiple personalities?

Secondly, in typical, ignorant, childish fashion you respond with accusing others of exactly what you do. Does that also give you "comfort"?


My disgust with Obaminable is FACT BASED and was established BEFORE he was even a viable bidder for the Presidency. HIS ONLY QUALIFICATION as an administrator was his spurious claim of being a "community organizer"!
Unfortunately, dupes like you bought into his "claims" not once, but twice!

Your hatred for Bush is emotional, and has no validity in fact. It never did. And your obsession with blaming Bush for all of the failures of Obmainable has no factual basis either ... anymore than it does for Obaminable, who has apparently NEVER accepted responsibility for his own shortcomings, but has relied primarily on "affirmative action" to seek status.

Now you won't take responsibility for your own failure in the voting booth. I could give you a pass for buying the "snake oil" once. But not TWICE!

Like those who have mental/emotion defects who call others "crazy," you and others on here call those who disagree with YOU "idiots" .... in an effort to elevate your self-perceived "intellectual" superiority ... "thinking" that labeling others as "idiots' will enhance your credibility. Just like" Everyone ELSE is crazy"!


That ploy may work in your selected circles, but not "on the street"!

First, does it give you some legitimacy to use the "collective" word "we"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

LLIdiot, that particular question would be much better suited for one of your identical twin offspring, JDIdiot. He was the first to introduce the "collective" word "we" into this thread. He did so in post #70 of this thread when he shared the following "words of (JDIdiot) wisdom":

And we know that you just want to hate George W. Bush for some reason. Why is that? You don't really articulate this hate, you just snark, but we can see it pretty plainly. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://www.eccie.net/newreply.php?do...y&p=1055671788

I did not follow up with the much more accurate reference to the "collective" word "we" until post #74.

Speaking of the "collective" word "we", do the two of you have a "we" lil' mouse in your "collective" pockets?

I think LLIdiot has a Mancrush on you BT. He tends to reply to you early and often.

I think LLIdiot has a Mancrush on you BT. He tends to reply to you early and often. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Don't worry YouRong, I have no interest or designs on your Main Squeeze!

You should really quit hanging around the Nau's Drug near Clarksville so much, Cowboy, it's wearing off on you.

I think LLIdiot has a Mancrush on you BT. He tends to reply to you early and often. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I always suspected LLIdiot was one of those!

Closet Colon Crusher.

LLIdiot's the Grand Draggin' of the CCC!

Closet Colon Crusher. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What's Rong ... YouRong .... has your Colon been destroyed already ....

... at Nau's Drug near Clarksville?

You and the Race Baiter, BigTits, have now progressed to HomoPhobia!

You guys are an embarrassment to the LIBERAL CAUSE.

I feel so ashamed...

According to what you perceive as your knowledge base. Isn't that the flaw?
No, it is all anyone can rationally do--make statements acording to what they perceive.

And if your "knowledge base" is so vastly superior in that particular occupation/endeavor, then you "know" that more often than not THE PRESIDENT doesn't "pre-approve" minute details, e.g. positioning of podiums and banners, but some "Junior Birdman" asserts his self-anointed authority and makes those decisions under the pretense of surrogate intellectual superiority ... yesterday he was stuffing mailers and today his setting up scenery for a photo op.

Nothing to do with what THE BOSS was THINKING.
That kind of logic on your part would say a leader is never responsible for anything they themselves do not directly do. But usually there are more of those details talked about up the food chain than you would imagine. Nancy Reagan might not have started it, but she took great care in all those kinds of things and since her it has been a far more active involvement by the inner circles. Originally Posted by LexusLover

.

Are you suggesting that the O-5 didn't tell the truth, Old-Twerp, because that's sure as hell what you're insinuating.
Yep. That's what I am saying.

Where's your "proof " that the O-5 was told to lie, Old-Twerp? In fact, where's your proof showing where the O-5 was given a directive telling him exactly what to say about anything that happened on that occasion, Old-Twerp?
Sorry, this whole board is based upon opinions, inferences, and in cases like yours, very closed bigoted minds. If you think ANY officer gets to respond to Q&A about the president without a clear and strict prep session, then you are reinforcing your cluelessness. I got an e-mail last week that was 6 PAGES of detailed "spontaneous replies" that anyone should give if asked about a project. And the project is relatively small and minimally controversial. On top of that, ANY interaction with the press must be per-approved on the project.

He may not have technically lied, but he spun the answers to deceive. Or he was himself clueless about the placement of the cameras--that could easily be the case. But there was no convenient "coincidence" about the placement--which is all I said.

Your simplistic world view just ain't the way it works.


The fact that the banner was made for the crew and not for Bush is "proof" that "the photo op" was entirely coincidental
No, all it proves is the banner was not MADE for that purpose, not that it wasn't USED for that purpose.

Old-Twerp. If the banner hadn't been made for the crew, then there would have been no banner at all!
How can I argue with that insightful statement? "If the banner wasn't made, there would be no banner!" Deep. Very deep.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You and JD are so blinded by your obama-hate that you refuse to understand the obvious: yes, the crew built the banner for themselves, but once it was seen by the WHMO and/or WH press office, they INTENTIONALLY set up the lines of sight for the cameras to use it. THAT is NOT a "coincidence". Not a hard concept to anyone who is willing to see it, but neither of you two are. It doesn't fit your hate-filed pathetic view of all politics.

You and JD are so blinded by your obama-hate that you refuse to understand the obvious: yes, the crew built the banner for themselves, but once it was seen by the WHMO and/or WH press office, they INTENTIONALLY set up the ligns of sight for the cameras to use it. THAT is NOT a "coincidence". Not a hard concept to anyone who is willing to see it, but neither of you two are. It doesn't fit your hate-filed pathetic view of all politics.
Originally Posted by Old-T

It's easy to understand the obvious, Old-Twerp. You've libeled an O-5 who has greater personal knowledge of said event than you, and YOU've fabricated a story which you cannot substantiate with proof; hence, it is OBVIOUS that you're a liar, Old-Twerp.

yes, the crew built the banner for themselves, but once it was seen by the WHMO and/or WH press office, they INTENTIONALLY set up the lines of sight for the cameras to use it. THAT is NOT a "coincidence". Not a hard concept to anyone who is willing to see it, but neither of you two are. It doesn't fit your hate-filed pathetic view of all politics. Originally Posted by Old-T

+1