TracyGraham
Well-known member
- Messages
- 544
- Reaction score
- 568
My point is that even with a wealth of evidence that he is tied deeply to israel, you are unwilling to even acknowledge, but instead say it is olbermanesque, tells me i might as well debate my microwave.You're arguing that the guy knew rich people and was connected, which everyone knew and that somehow justifies any and all hypothetical connections thereafter. This is a wild leap upon leap.
How does that further your cause? Why bother even engaging? I dont get it.
If you arent even willing to admit water is wet, how can we move on the next set of questions?
When did it become a virtue to just stonewall? You dont have to agree with everything your side does for the rest of your life, it's ok.
Last edited:

