Actually, you raise a defense every time you open an editor.

That you don't know the difference between a text editor and a CMT should come as a surprise to no one. The internets are darn complicated!

Yes, well, you are the rocket scientist who told us McCain was winning the day before the election :)

What is this aversion you have to the truth?

Hmmm. You are withing shouting distance here of an actual pathology here Skippy

No. I'm RESPONDING to it.

Actually, I have not said a word in his defense, as he does not need one.

Actually, you raise a defense every time you open an editor. A position I see you being in for four years.

I'm not trying to hurt the man, I'm simply pointing out where he does it to himself.

Yes, well, you are the rocket scientist who told us McCain was winning the day before the election :)

Yes, I do.
I already did.
Get used to it.

Hmmm. You are withing shouting distance here of an actual pathology here Skippy.

I see it is far more instructive about desperate you are to defend Obama at all costs

Actually, I have not said a word in his defense, as he does not need one. Not in general, and certainly not from the likes of you.

I see it is far more instructive about desperate you are to defend Obama at all costs... getting yourself all twisted out of shape in the process.

All we need to complete the act is a unicycle.

It is going to be fun to watch him run rings around these guys for the next eight years :)

Does tell me something about you, though.

Tells us all something. He's too smart to burn much daylight on Simple Simon.

Here's a clue Bit, YOU tell US, what you have found. Otherwise you are just blowing it out your ass (I can hear it now: "Well, if you could not find what I am talking about, you are an idiot!")

No; You simply decided not to look; you decided not to meet the terms in spite of the (factual) breadcrumbs I left on the path. (Shrug) Not my problem. Does tell me something about you, though.

As to what I found? You've both shown me a little of your little minds, as I expected you would. Why does every bit of research have to focus on, or reveal some major misdeed? I neither said nor implied that was the case here. But boy, did you both leap to that conclusion in a hellfire hurry.... Good show.

See, there's the thing; You need to actually read what people WRITE, as opposed to putting your own meanings in.

If we're talking about a fundraiser, he'd do fine. As you'd see if you'd bother looking it up. But you'd also see no particular in his record that gives him an edge for the job either, save that it serves an Obama political need for a homosexual to be in a cabinet level post.

But we're not talking about someone playing the role of Caroline Kennedy...(And there's another appointment that raises similar questions, for similar reasons) we're talking about SecNav, for which there seems no particular reason to name the guy, other than his sexuality, and that to satisfy a political need in an area that has naught to do with our military at all. At which point the questions I tossed Anjin (What would he have to say was Bush to appoint Rick Warren SecNav) becomes the focal point.

The choice was made without considerations on his qualifications for the job. The primary goal was calming the Homosexuals after they got their noses out of joint about the Warren thing. That kind of appointment seldom works out to the betterment of the position being filled. Given the world situation, the role deserves someone better qualified.

And guess what, guys... if McCain had made such an appointment you'd be screaming about it, just now.

you do not get to set the terms.

Yes, I do.
I already did.
Get used to it.

and mine centered on the record of the indiviual.

Sorry Bit, nowhere in any of your posts have you referred to any particular aspect of his record. Instead you engage in pure inuendo, such as:

Here's a clue, Anjin, since you seem to be begging for one. Don't go looking into military records. Look rather at Resturants, Real estate, and fundrasing.

Here's a clue Bit, YOU tell US, what you have found. Otherwise you are just blowing it out your ass (I can hear it now: "Well, if you could not find what I am talking about, you are an idiot!")

And no,

I laid out the terms.

you do not get to set the terms.

The terms are these Bit (and everybody else here who is serious at least tries to follow them): If you make a statement of fact, back it up with a source. No source? You have nothing but an opinion (or an insult, or pure slander), which by now everybody knows, stinks to high heaven.

I laid out the terms. Follow them.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Either present a coherent argument to support your statement, or go back to the far end of the bench where you belong.

Nope.
I laid out the terms. Follow them. Or are you unwilling to dig into the matter, because of what you might find?

And your charge of masking a gay-bash is laughable when every other comment, and apparently Obama's appointment as well, centers around homosexuality, and mine centered on the record of the indiviual.

Here's a clue, Anjin, since you seem to be begging for one. Don't go looking into military records. Look rather at Resturants, Real estate, and fundrasing.

In any event,given the timing of the Warren thing, it's logical to ask, as I already have, if White wasn't chosen by Obama because of his political worth, not for his ability to lead. You tell ME, Anjin, what would you say if Bush were to appoint, say, Rick Warren, as SecNav? You'd likely complain the appointment was made for political and idological reasons... not his ability for the position... and you'd be right to do so.

You tell me, Anjin, why doesn't that complant apply here?

I suggested a peek at his record would be helpful.

hah! Take a peek--Larry Craig-style!

Either present a coherent argument to support your statement, or go back to the far end of the bench where you belong.

No one is really interested in chasing your windmills. You record for being not just wrong, but big time wrong over and over again makes it pretty clear that most of what you say is a waste of time.

"I'm not doing your research for you". That line was lame when chat rooms on AOL were cutting edge.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
You should be able to intuit the rest.

You have not presented any valid reasons to think the man is in "over his head".

Intuit says you want to do a little gay bashing, but don't have the guts to come right out and do it...