And where have I cherry picked such that any original intent was distorted. Examples please so I can see if I made any errors or if you are just full of hot air. I simply prefer to highlight the pertinent portions of an article to bolster a position and respect the ability of others to go to a link for any additional information they wish to see.<quoted text>
Too funny, coming from an out-of-context cherry picker of articles, "facts", and above the fray concern.
Speaking of mutual admiration societies,
...there's Synergy who posts fact free laced with personal attacks and cites main stream sites only when it supports a position, otherwise those sites can't be trusted.
...then there's OMTE who's been on an Obama is a Muslim Terrorist rant for more than a week and now is venturing into End-Times Prophecy, but Thank God those posts are not repetative adnausem.
...then there's Big Dave who see a communist conspiracy lurking behind every tree and wonders why it's US policy to support Muslim countires when EVREYONE knows that most of the terrorists (today) are Muslim.
...and how could we forget the Master of Name Changes, Who What When Where Why and it's all just oh so Boring who's been proven wrong so many times that its credibility is in the realm of negative numbers.
Please tell us more about the use of hyperbole, projection, and strawman arguments, y'all have the techniques down pat.
Oh, wait, let's just declare success and move on to the next topic, that's how y'all proceeded time and time and time again.
Yep, I do respect the opinions of those posters you mentioned. Even those with whom I have disagreed on occasion.