Comment: Enough

(See in situ)


Enough

"Why are you making your goal my business?"

I stated my goal. I'm distant now. Thanks. I do not want to have anything more to do with you, at all. If you write something that is false, I will call it.

Again:

A.
"(Obama and Biden are all over the map as if they don't agree, don't have a plan, are not prioritizing a strtigy)"

B.
"I believe the most powerful people keep themselves in power by remaining hidden and employ puppets such as Obama and Biden."

My goal is to distance any support I have for the good things done by Rand Paul with contradictions like that above. If you do not see the contradiction, then I'm done.

I've had enough.

Thanks.

"Please, if it suits you, get as far away from me as possible, go in peace, be happy. Don't make threats or excuses, Just do it."

Not so fast.

Now I'm making threats?

Where?

Now I'm making excuses?

Where?

If I am making a threat, then that threat can be quoted.

If I am making excuses, then that excuse can be quoted.

If you write this:

A.
"(Obama and Biden are all over the map as if they don't agree, don't have a plan, are not prioritizing a strtigy)"

Then this:

B.
"I believe the most powerful people keep themselves in power by remaining hidden and employ puppets such as Obama and Biden."

That is contradictory: "they" are not a factor if "they" are mere puppets, so how can "they" who are mere puppets be held to account for "being all over the map", or "they don't agree", or "they" "don't have a plan", or "they" are "not prioritizing" anything, since they are puppets. So who, then, is held to account if not those two people who are told to be "all over the map", and told to not "agree", and told to not "have a plan", and told to "not" prioritize whatever; certainly not them, since they are puppets.

But that isn't scratching the surface of what I see as a need to reject completely as anything having anything to do with my viewpoint since there was then, after the above QUOTED contradictory viewpoints, IN YOUR WORDS, after that contradiction there is now this:

"Ok so central banks,, printing monopoly money.. are buying peace, and why you don't have a nuke exploding over your head right now."

Is that threatening? If I try to understand that message, I get the idea, foreign as it may be to my own sense of reality, but I get the idea that it is a good thing that "central banks" are "printing monopoly money" so as to buy "peace" and so that I don't have "a nuke exploding over" my "head right now".

So, logically, if I can employ reason, am I supposed to thank those same "central bankers" for keeping those nukes off my head, or am I supposed to be fearful of anyone who may threaten those central bankers since anyone threatening those central bankers with a competitive money, a better money, will cause nukes to go off over my head?

Now I'm asking, for clarification, since someone claims that someone is threatening someone.

Who is making those claims?

I can cut and paste.

"Don't make threats or excuses, Just do it."

Perhaps a misunderstanding is happening, and therefore it might be a good idea to restate what has already been stated twice?

My purpose (distance myself from the above type of thinking).

Actually I made my stated intentions clear 3 times, or more.

How can I distance myself from misunderstanding if the flow of "information" continues?

Like nukes exploding over my head I see this:

"Please, if it suits you, get as far away from me as possible, go in peace, be happy. Don't make threats or excuses, Just do it."

Tar baby anyone?

Joe