... And when I suggested on an earlier post a few days ago that his believing the bolded part might be one reason for his incessant defensiveness-- invoking the libertarian votes for Nader, and that we are ALL (the whole world) suffering under GWB, rather than thriving during a 2nd Gore term-- he denied it, and criticized me for trying to ascribe a motive to him, rather than paying attention to the "evidence."

I have never voted or supported the green party. How the hell does my observation that both parties are pro-war make me a Nader guy? That is just a dumb idea.

I have never voted for the outfit that claims to be the 'Libertarian Party'; in fact I have never voted 3rd party.

Why do you carry on about the green party and me?????

Then I point that out to you and about you and you call me a liar (and a little boy) for pointing that out. The exasperation factor is off the charts.

I was asked. I was cussed and discussed as some freak; then the few (your cabal) refused to pick a canidate. I knew why, no one is without flaw.

Why the fear? I took a guess and it looks more probable each day.

Now, if they actually made sense--that would require explanation.

I see you are looking in a mirror today. Perhaps you should take a long look. Who wrote the first derogatory post today attacking the man and not the position? Who makes snide little remakes in the safety of his posse's warm embrace?

Yes, it is a fool named Paul pretending to be a sophisticate and intellectual. If only you mother could see you now in all your glory, eh?

being told I am incapable of forming my own opinion about something, with the implication being that some man will do it for me. That is my age showing. It used to be like that. Back in the day.

---

So prove you can think, and give even even tentative support to someone. Here in public with your buddies looking on. You can withdraw support tomorrow and say it was a joke.

Just prove that you can do it.

PD: "You said what you said, you were called on it, you denied saying it, then you said it again and now you're daring us to prove that what you denied saying isn't true."

Paul, my fine fellow, let me tell you about the concept of time. It is linear to we mortals, and things do change over time.

I'll give you an example. I wrote that it seemed like no one here would give the name of a candidate that they favored and that it seemed like everyone was waiting on Glenn. I went even further and wrote that, if true, how sad would that be. I was an observation about appearances then; but as days go on and others bring it up continually I begin to see that it is probable with the small select crew who attacked me upon my mentioning my candidate. If those facts say 'pathetic' to your ears then so be it.

I can support Dennis Kucinich who is running now and will more than likely vote for him if Paul is already out of the race here. I still hold out hope for Gore to run, and win again. To say one can support a candidate does not open one for attack unless you already have a cabal at your heels; it is easy since we already know they will all disappoint in the end.

And lastly, did you not see LWM beg the other Paul to start another fight today? It looks like you think that I should just cower in the darkness and be quiet. I know the prevailing wisdom is to ignore the slander and hope it goes away, but that is not in my genetic makeup. So, on days when there is no Tom for the group to hate, one of the cabal will try to get me involved and then cry out that Bucky got involved.

Yes Kitt, I have no doubt that she is very smart and can take care of herself. She attacked Ron Paul because he is 'bad for women' in her mind. She also thinks it is absurd that anyone would think that there is even a small chance, that someone here could believe that the cabal that attacked me was afraid to pick a candidate.

So, after she wrote me and used the phrase, I asked her to prove that a cabal member could pick and defend a candidate.

Can you?

No. I really don't give a fig what you think, and my thoughts I share at my pleasure. Not to mention, I have no desire for any 'conversation' with you. Prove you are right. Or STFU.

But Arne my fellow, I did not bring it up again. You joined in the attack crew and hurled invective that it is impossible that none one but Bucky could name a candidate without a lead.

So now you cuss and get mad --- protest too much as the bard might say today.

Now we need a term to describe arguments that devolve into liberarians throwing sand in everyone else's eyes... but we'll naturally have to use some other name for the corollary.

What? You can not have missed that for weeks I only answer back in these fights. It is the cabal trowing sand at me.

It is like the fellow on this thread who claimed I might use the word 'libertarian' too much; when it is your crew that uses the word a few hundred times a day to go on the attack. Need a mirror?