On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:39:53 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

On 2010-04-29, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:05:30 -0500, Ignoramus22435
wrote:

The Republican candidate is Tim Burns.

Really?!

Yep.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/0...t/tab/article/

He is a politician by definition (because he seeks a position of
influence in government). And yet he claims on his website that he "is
NOT a politician".

Wow! You sure do have a grasp on the obvious!

Just trying my best.

Obviously. Are you still breathing?

This means two things:

1) That he is a liar.

You should know all about it, being a liar.

I do not say something like "I am NOT a usenet poster", unlike that
Tim Burns politician who says he is NOT a politician.

shrug *You* are still a liar.

2) That he obviously thinks that there are enough gullible people who
would vote for a politician, to appoint him to be a politician for
their district, who says that he "is NOT a politician".

I personally would not vote for such a dishonest liar.

Your nym certainly *is* accurate (though perhaps 22434 too high).

Possibly, but that does not make Tim Burns any more trustworthy.

I made no statement otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that you're a
liar, and an admitted ignoramus.