just leave it be, he's doing the same thing with the links that he did with the title.. he's looking for errors to call you on instead of addressing the issue. he doesn't want to address the issue for some reason, and you're not going to make him.. no, really.. it's been 3 pages already and nothing but blind eye. Next, he'll bring up your spelling or something just as arbitrary in order to avoid saying anything against the pack.. it's his check-list on how to divert the topic at hand without ever once addressing the issue..
like I said, it's tiresome.
No, you're wrong. I've already explained my position, and given you a freebie: That this preacher or whatever he is is as kooky as you guys say he is. So if the issue is not how kooky this guy is (I've given you that), and the issue isn't that this guy's a minister to Huckabee (Howey sorta/kinda admitted that he wasn't), then what is THE ISSUE I'm failing to address?
I don't have to play spelling nazi or any other tactic to avoid addressing the issue. You pretended the issue is one thing (Huckabee's minister) than another (he's a nut!), so what else is left? If the best answer you can come up with is go back and read everything again, even though the only issue's any of you has mentioned that this guy is kooky and/or Huckabee's preacher, is the REAL ISSUE some secret I'm supposed to divine?
Either tell me what the real issue is or don't, so far you've failed to make me interested in this topic other than to counter your accusations that I'm avoiding it. If it's so important I'm sure Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell will let me know.
