Reply #43: nope, I think i'm being pretty clear.

[Lerkfish]

you're the one who insists on being confused.

here, I'll help you read it correctly:

although having seen those references, it appears to be more in the corporate toady and shill category rather than the oldest profession.
The choice of words is unfortunate, but the contention is valid. She's not even a nominee yet and she's already quid quo pro'd an amazing windfall to her largest contributors with her health plan.

see? I'm saying I thought they meant a corporate shill, in which case I think their contention is valid. And it is.
You're the one that keeps trying to twist what I said into its exact opposite meaning, now 3 times, so I can only conclude you are INTENTIONALLY attempting to smear me.

oh, and by the way, intentional misquoting someone by selective editing is so last year. :)