jakee

Ok, but that's a strange point to hang your hat on since no-one else used the phrase 'presenting witnesses'. The point you were replying to was 'hear witnesses or allow new evidence'.

That simply reflects back the extreme bias and hatred of the Dems that YOU bring into every discussion. Stack any single random day of twitter outbursts from Trump against any breaches of decorum from Pelosi over 3 decades in office and see who comes out ahead.

So it was both a planned gesture and a petulant temper tantrum. Got it.

Come on man, just because there was a fuckup doesn’t mean it was nefarious. The idea that the DNC would willingly shoot themselves in the foot and hand the RNC so much ammunition by spectacularly fucking up in full public view just to deny their less favoured son a victory lap ahead of the next caucus is not an example of healthy scepticism. It simply doesn’t make sense. Regardless of whether they’re trying to rig it I can’t believe they’re stupid enough to rig it this way.

That people with experience in national campaign tech run a campaign tech firm? Yeah - who saw that coming?

Since none of them are in a courtroom or involved in a criminal case, what are the inmplications?

Then what does it have to do with? You said you disagreed with the gay lifestyle. The question asked is 'why do you disagree with the gay lifestyle?' How could that be the wrong question?

I'm not going to deliberately misconstrue anything. The only reason you should be worried that what you have to say would make you sound homophobic is if you know that it is homophobic. That's the image you are choosing to project right now.

To check if 'that' referred to what it took to get on your bad side, or what your bad side actually is. Then when you clarified the question, I answered it. Pretty straightforward really, I honestly don't see why you think it's some kind of 'gotcha' moment. Anyway, speaking of answering questions, you should try it. Why do you disagree with the gay lifestyle?

That makes no sense whatsoever. As I said, I played your game and I answered your question. Several times, with unmistakeable clarity. Now do you want to behave like a grownup and answer one of my questions, or do you want to keep fucking about with the schoolyard nonsense?

The post after you clarified what your question was. One post is immediate. You asked a question, I answered it. Several times. Which is is the exact opposite of how you are behaving. Why do you disagree with the gay lifestyle?

You got an explanation immediately, and it was obvious. What else could I possibly have been referring to? By the way, it's been more than a few posts for an explanation to come forth from you - why do you disagree with the gay lifestyle? You are the only person here who thinks that disagreeing with someone or something means you hate it. Just because you constantly accuse others of hate doesn't mean others are accusing you of it just because they've called oyu on your prejudice.

See the above post. It was obvious from the first post, and I have since directly, explicitly, unmistakeably and unmisunderstandably clarified exactly what I meant. The only way you could possibly not know what I meant is if you have just suffered a stroke rendering you incapable of understanding certain parts of the english language. I've played your game, I've answered your question, now stop fucking about. By the way, I'd still like to know why you disagree with the gay lifestyle. YOU wrote that. Why?

What on earth are you talking about? To sum up the last couple of exchanges: Turtle: What does it take to get on my bad side? Me: Being a minority sexuality. Turtle: Why won't you answer the question!!??!! Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Look, I can understand why you're embarrassed at having said it, but refusing to either explain or withdraw it is only making things worse. When was the word 'some' used? It wasn't used when you said you disagreed with the gay lifestyle. The statement you made was all encompassing, and since you refuse to explain it then what else do we have to go by? The fact that you think your opinion will make you sound more like a homophobe if you explain it should really make you stop and think about whether you are in fact a homophobe, no? (And by the way, ingratiated does not mean what you think it means.) Why would you think it's a good idea right now to compare being gay to habitual drug use? Do you really think that's going to help your cause?

Being a minority in sexuality. Duh. Seriously, what do you think you are achieving by pretending to be too stupid to understand that? By the way, why are you having so much trouble explaining why you disagree with the gay lifestyle?

"Wow - so all it takes to get on your side is to be a minority in sexuality?" Again, this is what I quoted in the post and it is clearly, obviously and unmistakeably what I am referring to. I obviously understood the question, I obviously answered it, and you obviously know that I did. Why do you deliberately try and make yourself look this stupid?

The thing I am quoting in that post. How on earth do you manage to get confused by that?

That's nonsense. Judging by the standards of 'hate' that you hold everyone else to you clearly hate the democrats in general and the Clintons in particular. And it definitely colours your ability to judge them by anything remotely like the standards you hold republicans to.

What is what, exactly?

Better than it being all it takes to get on your bad side.

The Yanomami in the heart of the rainforest and the Faiyum A in the Nile valley. I mean, what do you think the word 'resources' means?

Surprisingly enough I don’t need you to tell me that all Neolithic societies were Neolithic societies. Clue’s in the name, dude. No, it’s how you fathom that they all had the same resources available to them that Is the hilarious part. ”Perhaps if I replaced "religion" with "culture" it would be less incendiary. After all "culture" sounds very secular and has nothing to do with religion. (just ask the Ayatollah) “ You could do that, but it wouldn’t be the same as the argument you’re currently trying to make. But then it’s evident that you’re just making it up as you go along right now so no great surprise.

All neothilic societies have the same resources? That's ridiculous. Couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

You absolutely did say that civilisation couldn't advance without religion. Several times.

Japan. Shinto is an animistic religion that worships entities who inhabit individual trees and frogs, not omnipotent angry gods. Regardless of which, your logic is still broken.