I know what it meant, I just wanted to see if that poster had enough integrity to explain a cryptic post directed to me. He failed. It would have made sense if he directed the remark to you unfortunately he did not. That is why it meant nothing to me.LOL, it's a DIRECT reference to a post in this thread.
I know what it meant, I just wanted to see if that poster had enough integrity to explain a cryptic post directed to me. He failed. It would have made sense if he directed the remark to you unfortunately he did not. That is why it meant nothing to me.
Of course. He excluded the fact that it referred to IQ.He was being cryptic? Now that's funny.
Of course. He excluded the fact that it referred to IQ.
Back to the OP...it could be smoking gun documents that are related to what took place in Benghazi.
Buckeye for Obamaplease tell me you're not from a swing state.
You might be right! The Billy Graham Church Corporation is so impressed with Romney that they retracted their claim that Mormonism was a cult!the October surprise is that Obama was so impressed with the character of Romney that he is going to change to the Mormon church and the Muslims are marching against the Whitehouse.
Do try to avoid making this about me.Buckeye for Obama
I would appreciate it if you refrain from subtle insults.
But in this fraud and hoax there was a truth Romney supporters are scared to death of an October surprise, another Dan Rather fake document or NY Times ancient document dump shortly before Election Day.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/in-the-an-october-surprise-hoax-there-was-a-truth/
I see no claim it ever was, just your incorrect assertion. please review the punctuation in the sentence quoted, it helps with accurate comprehension.Rather's document was not released in October, so it was not an October surprise.
I see no claim it ever was, just your incorrect assertion. please review the punctuation in the sentence quoted, it helps with accurate comprehension.
Considering I never claimed that you said it was an October surprise, which part of my statement do you find inaccurate?
Rather's document was still no October surprise
Rather's document was not released in October, so it was not an October surprise.
Because Rather's document was not an October surprise. Do you consider my factual statement to be untrue?ok, please explain why you made this post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_RatherOn September 8, 2004, Rather reported on 60 Minutes Wednesday that a series of memos critical of President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record had been discovered in the personal files of Lt. Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian.[25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather#cite_note-24