Split the difference

[DisgustipatedinCA]

With all the arguing back and forth, I wanted to add my piece.

I'm not up on the latest board rules about mentioning people by name, so I won't, although it would be easier to communicate ideas if I could. Nonetheless...

-The President defended the lead-up to the war, not the war itself.
-The President shouldn't have defended this, since it was a sham and we all knew it at the time.
-The poster in question should not have used the car salesman language again. It looks like he is spoiling for a fight or a ban.
-The first post, the one about ACA, was more understandable than this latest post.
-Anger is occasionally a gift, but not very often.
-there are people on this site who would like to have those who aren't pure enough banned.
-These people's motives are NOT pure--they're up to no good.
-Nothing that the poster in question has said in either thread can be construed as racist.
-people who claim that the poster is a racist, or people who imply this, do so knowing that this is untrue. There is a word for people like this, and I won't type it, but we all know what it is. These people should not be trusted.
-The Iraq War, and the lead-up to the war, was a damnable abomination, and no part of it should ever be defended by anyone for any reason.

I believe that's all I have to say for now. Thank you.

[djean111]

1. "there are people on this site who would like to have those who aren't pure enough banned. "

Oh, that one can cut both ways, but I do believe there are those who want everyone to have a purity of admiration for Obama, and call those who do not trolls, RWers, etc.

[JaneyVee]

2. The first post about ACA was retracted, making the

Second post even more ridiculous and lame.