This is getting tedious (and tendentious), S. Hatrack
. You are wrong. You are not even close to the mark, and you STILL
have provided NO SUBSTANCE
. If you will follow your own quote without running it through your uber-partisan blender, you could see the error of your comment. [Mind you, I have no expectation
of that happening.] Specifically, I said, "His argument
is nonsensical." NOTE: THIS DEMONSTRATES I READ IT, and rejected the SUBSTANCE of his comment.
Instead, you ignore the meat and go for the sizzle.
Instead you have dismissed every shred of evidence, and every citation to such evidence, with a simple "partisan" moniker, refused to address the substance, and provided NOTHING in response. Then you have the temerity to say "To reject and condemn the views of anyone who doesn't agree with you is not participating in a debate." Seriously?! You have done nothing but that. Repeatedly, derisively, and without substance. Even the eventual reference to Alan Dershowitz only confirmed my previous assertion that you rely on "talking heads" rather than personal investigation and observation. I asked for your opinion about the detailed and non-partisan elements underlying the articles.
This is NOT
dismissing something as partisan?
"Of course you would. He's a Fox commentator, a Trump acolyte, and used to be a rational person. I do thank you, though, for acknowledging you haven't read it. I have. Dershowitz has no credibility anymore. His argument is nonsensical."
Again, this is trolling 101. It has nothing to do with the thread, is calculated to take the thread off post and adds NOTHING
to the conversation.