Miley Cyrus breaks down in tears on video!

Any number of folks who are not my countrymen.

 

So there are no enemies of America among your countrymen. Have I got that right?

 

Not exactly. There are domestic terrorists etc who act with the interest of destroying my country, who were born here. However, someone who acts in what they believe is the best interest of our nation and are just wrong (leftists) are not my enemy. They are misguided. If I cannot make them see reason, then I consider that a fault of mine.

 

Again who the hell really cares what some Hollyweird twit thinks or says. But then it is fun to now watch them whine an bawl like a 3 year old that didnt get candy.

 

And none that I know of have left the US like they said they would. What a bunch of liars.

 

Kennedy (FBN) and a regular guest ''hipster' Gavin McInnes bet that Trump would never be president----she paid him $100

Now they have a double-or-nothing bet that none on her long list of celebrities would leave the country for $200

 

So does that include politicians? And if not, why not?

You think Benedict Arnold wasn't misguided?

In the case of those who refuse to see reason, clearly you are foolish to do so.

 

I am not aware of any politicians bent on the destruction of the country who violate the laws. You might perceive their vision as destructive... I am not sure they do.

Arnold led an armed revolt. Not legal.

I dont mean the mentally ill. I dont think that half the country is insane, just misguided. For all that it is possible I am. Time will tell.

 

Given who's been President for the last 7+ years, your awareness leaves a helluva a lot to be desired.

And that is germane because...?

That's pretty funny, considering he was acting to thwart an illegal armed revolt.

 

Because of my answers to your questions. You do not get to decide that someones good intentions are misguided and then destroy them. That is psychotic.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Arnold was a petty and bitter traitor. His motivations were selfish, not to save lives, nor because he felt the colonies (and his) actions were illegal. He felt slighted by congress and sold us down the river for revenge. You have a very weird way of viewing the world.

 

You really are beating this dead ('high') horse, huh!

 

Then you value those answers by at least a million percent.

Actually I do...

...and of course I never advocated destroying anyone, so thanks for the stupid.

Since when is that a synonym for "stone cold fact"?

Which contravenes nothing I said, obviously.

 

No, it means you are interpreting my answers rather than reading them. Words have meaning.

You split a sentence up in order to argue with a strawman. Weak sauce. As to destruction, again, words have meaning. The word we are debating is "enemy". I do not require you to advocate treatment of an enemy... you are attempting to conflate the words "idiot" and "enemy", and I am not allowing it.

Yes... yes it does. You suggest he was trying to "thwart" an illegal rebellion. He was a traitor, who sold out our union for petty grievances. Your implication was that of a moral imperative... it was anything but.

Do you have a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing point here? People who disagree with you aren't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing enemies because they have a different perspective. Your rhetoric is a logical non sequitur and frankly (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -

I reserve terms like "enemy" for radical Islamic terrorists... not brainwashed snowflakes at Berkley.

 

Ideally, yes; when they come from you, not so much.

No, I split a sentence to expose a strawman, obviously.

True to form, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

I suggested no such thing, obviously.

No, that was your hopelessly retarded inference.

Not that you're willing (or perhaps even able) to comprehend.

 

Argument falls apart, and you attack the poster. True to form. I said that half the nation were not my enemy. You tried, laughably, to suggest they are.

No. You dropped the qualifier off of my sentence to create a standalone point I was not making in order to argue with yourself.

Because you don't understand a thing, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Yes, you did. Your exact quote was "That's pretty funny, considering he was acting to thwart an illegal armed revolt." You literally said exactly that! If you cannot comprehend your own posts, how could you possibly be tasked to understand more intelligent ones?

 

I did no such thing, of course; but your compulsion to engage in the very strawman-building you fraudulently accuse me of is understandable.

Yes.

Since when is that a synonym for "brazen misrepresentation"?

Which might be interesting if anything you said lent itself to understanding - other than the understanding of your penchant for distortion, that is.

Indeed I did, and congratulations on quoting me accurately; but alas, experience suggests you cannot be expected to note on the second reading what you should have noted on the first: that there is no implication as to Arnold's motive therein.

 

You absolutely (*)(*)(*)(*)ing did. I began, simply enough:

You said:

This is implicit that you disagree that half of our (*)(*)(*)(*)ing country IS INDEED our enemy... but I give you the benefit of the doubt. I say:

You then double down and invoke your first non-sequitur.

I say there are certainly countrymen of mine who are my enemy, just not half the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing country. Your reply?

This begins two tangents from my initial assertions which you challenged. I address them. I say

You then went on to further

Your first question reduces my initial assertion that half of the country were not my enemies and ask me about "politicians" which you then assert that the administration is bent on the willful destruction of the country. I suggest that this is not their intent, and you... clearly not following... suggest that intent does not matter.

This in and of itself demonstrates an inability to grasp logic. This goes on, but it is wasting my valuable time. You clearly want to be controversial, I don't care. It didnt make it into the movie, Or your excuses.

 

No, there was no implication whatsoever. It was a perfectly straightforward question which you obviously find scary, wherefore you found it necessary to encumber it with an extraneous subtext so as to justify evading it.

Clearly the term doesn't mean anything like what you think it means.

I absolutely did not; and while angry people like yourself may not be enemies of America, the absolute best they can ever hope to be is part of the problem.

And with that, we're done here.

 

Your entire retort is "nuh uh" in the face of clear exploration not of my feelings, but your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing words. It is laid bare for everyone. Of course you wish to discontinue. You are run through.

I did not win this debate, you committed suicide. It is terribly dissatisfying.