Exploit

ROTFL!

ROTFL! I counted ten of those without counting the ones in quotes. With the quotes, it comes to about thirty.

Your "answers" were not clear, and you appeared to be playing liguistic games. Apparently you think I have come looking for a fight. Instead of taking all of my posts as invitations to a battle, try analyzing the content of them. OK, now I think I'm understanding what you're saying. I take it that you are against the pigskin act itself, or at the least will not promote it because it is not your belief, but at the same time will not officially condemn a nation that does it since you feel you have no authority or business telling them what to do or not to do. Is this summary correct? I want to make sure I understand you before I go any further. Perhaps some clarity would help. It looked like you condemned the pigskin idea, changed your mind that it was none of your business, and then when asked, maintained your original position. I don't believe putting terrorists in pigskin will send them to hell. The point of doing that is to send a message back to the terrorists. Since the terrorists claim justification from their religion, Russia has decided to throw their beliefs right back in their face. The first post of this thread explained this.

Lee: I have no wish to discuss you. Apparently you will not answer my original question, nor my subsequent questions to you in my last post or so. If you don't wish to answer them, why play linguistic games? Why not come on out and say so?

Lee: I had pointed out where I believe you have objected to the pigskin idea and was asking for confirmation or a denial. If you don't wish to discuss this issue any further, please inform me of your decision. Regarding your "perception", I had thought it was pertinent since you had stated it had some effect on your answer. About the "MOTHER RUSSIA" comment, why are you continuously asking others if they have a problem with it? Please tell us what your issue with it is.

Absolutely. Why wait? Hang on. To what perception are you referring, and why can't you just answer a simple question? It wasn't a trick question. You appeared to object to the pigskin idea, but then said it's none of your business, so I want to know why you even bothered to object to it. I think your issue with this is a result of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the caption. Maybe. Awaiting your response.

Yes, but how can you attribute a crime to a People when you admit you have no proof other than referencing to the wickedness of man's heart? If you allow yourself to do that, then you can assume all kinds of crimes were committed that never were.

So what's your problem then?

If Israel is "not perfect", it does not mean that she must be guilty of human rights violations.

Glad you responded, however, I don't see how you could logically reach your conclusion. Basically, your answer starts out with the assumption Israel is not perfect and ends with stating that she is probably guilty of human rights violations, even though you admit you have no proof of this.

What are you using as proof of the above statement?