I honestly don’t care what you report at IPR. It isn’t my property. I enjoy reading IPR because of the things y’all choose to report, and on which I choose to comment. As soon as it stops amusing me to post here, I’ll stop.

If you have these powers and don’t intend to threaten or intimidate, then simply use the powers you have. Mentioning all these terrible things you could do to me is threatening to use them. All your “I said I won’t” means is, “I could change my mind.”

Which is great. It encourages me to be more outrageous. Throw me in the brier patch, Br’er Bear.

you win quote of the day. =)

Sorry, couldn’t resist…

No threat intended—in fact I explicitly stated that I WASNT going to do any of those things. You can read,right?

I also explicitly stated my belief in the “free market of ideas,and all that”. So…..where were the threats Jim?

You really have a few screws loose pal. You’re more than welcome to continue shuffling your feet around here–but making assinine statements will only confirm what people already suspect about you. Nevertheless, you’re more than free to MAKE those statements–but i’m going to correct them whenever I feel like it. And this whole “free coverage of the BTP” thing is going to stop. When the BTP does something newsworthy,it’ll get coverage here at IPR. But an explosive growth of 15 BTP members in 4 weeks isnt going to be posted here any longer. Make real news, and you’ll get real coverage. That isnt a threat, it’s a basic statement about our policy. That same policy applies to the ModernWhigs, American Heritage Party, etc.

There’s really no reason to suppose that this fusion ticket concept is valid. It would be mildly amusing to see Robert and “woman from party A or B” run, just to see how few votes they got. Hard to see what would be in it for the woman, though.

What you bring to the table is a lot of weird ideas. These are not qualifications. They are a lot of weird ideas. Not all of them are on their face alarming, but some of them are.

You also bring to the table an eagerness for a female running mate. This approach has seemed at times creepy and at times smarmy. It is creepy in that it seems like the way you want to relate to women who have ideas different from yours. It is smarmy in that you seem to think that the only thing a woman is good for is to be the running mate of a man. It would seem a tad less sexist if you were to assume the vice presidential position from time to time.

Is “Curtis Lavell Vance” an alias for Roberto Milnes?

Seriously, stop doing this to yourself. If there is to be any sort of fusion ticket, it won’t be one with your name on it. You’re just embarassing yourself by keeping this up.

Back to the old game plan.

/ignore Milnes.

Suggesting that X would make Candidate A more credible, when one helped to elect and campaign for Candidate B, who lacked X, seems backwards.
However, not-X IS a detriment to one’s image as a candidate, especially for President.