So basically you cannot see the obvious flaw in your logic. I guess we will all need to leave you to deal with that yourself.
Saying that a government is not dealing straight with X, does not mean that you sympathise with, or agree with what X is doing. The person making the statement has repeatedly clarified what they meant, and said unequivocally that they do NOT agree with what X has done, and yet you persist in mischaracterizing their comments. To keep trying to defend that point is, quite frankly, ignorant. But many people have tried to explain it, and you won't accept it. Which to me implies that this is a deliberate attempt on your part to inflame the discussion. On 16 July 2014 12:54, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: ᧠> > Please Scott, you're better than that. > > It's clear as day how this went down so stop defending the > indefensible. I asked if she was a supporter and she said no. I then > stated she sympathized with them since she stated she felt they were > dealing with a dishonest Israeli leader. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:371654 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
