Nope, I know no such thing TB. You gave a very feeble defense of your pick of Joe Biden and I would like to pursue that. Why would you run from such a “strong” position?
As for Trump you were wrong about when he got an inheritance and I called you on it and now you run from that one.
As for Hillary being better than Trump in the short and long term, yes you gave a reason but you never elaborated on it.
I want these topics fully explained.
Can you please explain your wacky positions to me TB?
I only seek to understand why you said what you said.
Ha ha that is your best line lackey. The only thing you ever do is cut and paste repeatedly. I wonder have you ever had an original thought? I mean one that didn’t first come from TB’s keyboard?
If you do a search, you’ll see that we discussed the Biden-as-negotiator topic last fall (see Hillary v. Carson thread). Before that, we went even further, as the purpose of that thread was to pick who was the best from a list.
So, we’ve gone over this multiple times, and you know it. You’re just lying now.
Better question: do you ever stop lying? It’s pathological at this point.
And if you do a search you will see that I answered you.
As for your responses to my inquiries they were insufficient then just as they are now. I let you slide then because I felt like being kind. I don’t quite feel that way now. after all your answer for the Clinton being better in the short and long term was pathetic. It was based on unrealistic political prognostications. Sort of like when you predicted that Trump would be laughed out of the republican primary. Let’s face it political predictions are not your strong suit.
Please answer my three questions to my satisfaction. If you do I may even repost my answer to you.
No, you didn’t, this is just another lie. There’s four of us who have seen no answer from you and are waiting on one - I’m confident one of us would have seen of it existed.
I actually did answer you and that is the absolute truth. I have no idea where you are looking or what you are looking for at this point.
As for you answering my inquiries you are out to lunch.
And quite honestly I think we are all deserving of an answer to all three questions. You have masqueraded as a conservative (at least some of the time) over the past decade and I’m thinking at this point that this was just one big lie
Horseshit. If this were true, you could have easily reposted it. Four intelligent posters can’t seem to locate any such response.
So, stop lying, the lying only makes it worse, and supply your answer as to why Garland was wrong on the criminal sentencing case by virtue of an anti-gun bias.
If you are looking for an intricate line by line breakdown of any particular legal case then you won’t find it as I have no desire to do so and never did, nor did I say I would. And as a matter of fact this has been discussed ad nauseam by both the left and the right (google big shot). If you think that either of us can improve on what has been said your ego is even larger than what I originally thought it was.
I don’t care if you go line by line or not, I just want to hear why you think Garland was wrong in the four cases, starting with the criminal sentencing case.
You said he was wrong, just tell us why. It shouldn’t be that hard.
You said he was wrong and he had an anti-gun bias. All we are waiting on is for you to tell us why he got the case wrong. You clearly think he got the case wrong because you said he got the case wrong. So tell us why.
