You are entitled to your opinion. However when you make up "facts" to support it, you can expect that I will point them out.

Furthermore you are entitled to have whatever opinion of me that you want to hold. It matters not at all to me what you think of me. I do find it interesting that you have such awful things to say about me and yet you keep coming back to reply to my comments and JEs. I cannot force you to reply to what I write, nor would I ever want to. I do wish I could succeed in encouraging you to read what you reply to before writing your replies, however.

I already did. I'm sorry that you can't be bothered to put forth enough effort towards reading my comments to see that. Your silly childish insults directed towards other parts of my comments, combined with your bragging about what you have not read, do not help your cause.

No, and no.

I was not placing words in your mouth. You can pretend otherwise if you like, but that will not make it so.

When I said you claim him to be the anti-Christ, that was a combination of how I see people use the term, and how you describe him (which is consistent with how I often see people use the term). I understand that you have chosen to feign insult here, and you have the right to do that if you wish. I have acknowledged that you see the term anti-Christ to have a very specific meaning, which somehow is slightly different from your occasionally apocalyptic view of President Lawnchair.

From others I would see that as a strange way to brush off an explanation. Being as you make it your standard m.o. to not read texts fully before hitting reply, it fits well with your behavior here.

The rest of your illogical gibberish isn't worthy of additional response.

Is it really fair to call it a NWO when it wasn't his NWO? The conspiracy theories attached to President Lawnchair generally swear that he is going to launch his own NWO, not be another member of a crappy extant one. As I have pointed out many times before, Obama is following the same playbook - for the same masters - as the guys who came before him. It isn't much of a NWO when there is nothing new.

Being as pretty much everything he has "achieved" is counter to his campaign promises - and has done little to nothing to help create a distinct image for his party - it seems he has done a really awful job of that.

There is no joke there. The use of "anti-Christ" is simply a reflection of how some use the term. The fact that you use it in a more literal sense than others only shows that there is more than one way to apply that term. If you opt to get your undies all up in a bunch over that, well that is your problem and not mine. I have already explained how I am using the term in this context.

It appears you have opted to channel your inner Pudge, there, with your random assertion about other "readers". How that line in any way follows what you quoted is not the least bit clear:

Was that all the more of my comment that you read? While your replies - both to JEs and to comments of mine - have supported for some time that you don't read my writings from start to finish, here what you have quoted is such a small snippet as to have lost both its context and meaning. If we go back to what I wrote :

There is plenty of evidence in your own conspiracy-backed comments to support my claim. In fact the only way that my claim would not be supported by your own comments would be if you either don't actually believe in the conspiracy theories you relentlessly post here, or if you would welcome the nation that would result if they came to fruition.

No.

I apologize if you took my use of the term anti-Christ as being more than euphemistic. In many other circles the term "anti-Christ" is analogous to "anyone who is the embodiment of evil, regardless of religious affiliation (or absence thereof)". From what you have written so far, particularly in light of the conspiracy theories you love to share regarding him, that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama.

That is an interesting case of you trying to support two countering arguments in one JE, there. Your JE claimed that he was a do-nothing, and now you quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ, poised to launch his new world order at any coming moment.

I would love for you to explain how those two views are not diametrically opposed, but being as you haven't been bothered by them so far in the least I don't expect that you ever will be in the future. When January 2017 draws to a close with a new POTUS and none of the new world order having come to pass I am sure I will find your newest conspiracy theories regarding President Lawnchair to be just as fantastic.

Are you referring to Thou shalt not covet? To say that doesn't fit here is an understatement. Too bad Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies isn't one, as you could learn a lot from it.

I am not going to read it for you. If you want the Cliff's notes, this is the closest to them I have found. Clearly I cannot motivate you to pursue knowledge, but perhaps they can.

You are utterly wrong on that. You are free to read something and disagree with it. You are even free to disagree with what you don't read. However when you refuse to read something, and then parade about pretending to be an expert on it, it is very likely that you will make yourself look foolish (which you have done repeatedly on this case in particular).

There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with Marx. What is absurd is you continuing to claim to be knowledgeable on Communism while refusing to read the fundamental text on it. It would be like someone claiming to be knowledgeable on Jesus because they read about him on uncyclopedia.

If that is the case, then wouldn't your argument be going back towards President Lawnchair having done nothing? If he really isn't

... then it would be difficult to imagine him being able to find any time to do any POTUS stuff. Even more so, it would be quite nearly impossible for him to gather this party to gather momentum for legislation.

In other words if you want to take that angle you can't really support your bit about him prepping to bring about a new world order.