Reply With Quote
C'mon Nono...prove you aren't as much of a pussy as Chump and Shasta are...
I'll take you off ignore if you do....pussy.
Ok it's hard to tell whether you're being serious but do I really need to point out that this is basing what you post on what he thinks?
C'mon Nono...prove you aren't as much of a pussy as Chump and Shasta are...
I'll take you off ignore if you do....pussy.
There you go again with your ignore list... An ignore list is for pussies like you.
It defines the level of pussiness you have.
I called you out, are you going to answer or remain the laughingstock of this forum?
EDIT: FWIW, I did answer your question in a thread I started some time ago. I believe it was even before you brought the subject up. But you are too much a pussy to read my posts.
As eivdenced by the dicussion we are having now...
It's not that I am too much of a pussy to read your posts...it's that your posts aren't read worthy 99% of the time.
I am reading them now because Chump ran away and I am bored.
You probably missed this one too in this same thread:
which obviously was followed by:Cue in whottt's meaningless stat for how many people watched this SNL...
Your is so weak it's easily predictable these days. You didn't used to be this weak of a poster. But really have outdone yourself lately.
Keep up the good work! You're truly hilarious!
Meaninless is the key word...on a number of levels. BTW, thanks for reminding me...
Dude...shut the up, you've been here like a year.Your is so weak it's easily predictable these days. You didn't used to be this weak of a poster. But really have outdone yourself lately.
Keep up the good work! You're truly hilarious!
OH NOES!!!! my e-rep is crumbling!
GTFO pulling the senior card
So let's see...3 huge pussies saying I am running away, that are actually the ones terrified to give an answer to a question only they could know.
Wimps always cling to each other...and puss out together.
You're on ignore Chump with the Shasta's and ElNono's of the world...until you can manage to come up with an honest answer to a simple question.
And don't delude yourself into thinking it's a compliment.
*scrapes off shoes*
Pussies.
Ok I'll play your game. I wanna see what you post after someone actually answers your idiotic question. I'd say half a percent of the estimated voting population would equal massive voter fraud. Half a percent of 160 million people would be 800,000 people. There ya go. Go out and find 800,000 instances of voter fraud, not voter registration fraud. go out and find 100,000 cases of voter fraud. I would bet you can't.
I kicked moose ass last night!!
Did he just announce somebody else making his ignore list?
I have never and will never use the ignore function.
No reason really. I know Whottt votes with his and was just seeing if you were on the same boat.
Palin is the worst VP nomination since Eagleton. She has done nothing for McCain except "rally the base". You know, those hardcore rednecks in Dixieland who suck the most from Welfare and Medicaid and contribute less than any other state in the Union.
That base.
Say o to your mother for me.
You're right..I can't find evidence of 100,000 fraudulent votes.
By your definition there isn't any evidence of massive voter fraud, so there's no point to me posting the information that I do have....not that it's hard to find anyway for those seeking it.
So, is there massive democrat voter fraud or not? What do you consider massive?
Dennis Prager was already saying that ACORN's voter fraud may be too large for McCain to overcome. The 220,000 fraudulent votes (yes, they're already votes) in Ohio is twice as large as Bush's margin of victory in the last election.
How are they fraudulent? I mean, there was a lawsuit challenging those registrations, but I don't even think there was a court case yet?
By the way Shasta...you'll be happy to know that I've decided to take you off ignore since you have the balls that Chump lacks. As you can see...there was no ace up my sleeve, it was just a simple question to let me know if it was worth the effort.
Try to keep your posts more substantive than the latest blurbs from the DailyKos and perhaps you will stay off my ignore list.
I will say you have kind of a re ed definition of voter fraud. Any fraud that results in the will of the people not being executed is IMO, massive, and since our President is elected by Electoral Votes and not the popular vote, it doesn't take that much to conduct MASSIVE voter fraud...in recent history that could be as little as under 400 votes in a small state(like New Mexico in 2000) or under 600 votes in a state with a MASSIVE electoral count like Florida(also in 2000)...
But based on your definition that sort of fraud wouldn't be massive...which IMO, confirms my opinion of the typical Lib on this forum....so really what is the point of posting routine possible state and election swining numbers?
I didn't listen to Prager that long, but I doubt he gave a detailed explanation of the allegation or the process involved. But the point is that the narrative of ACORN stealing the election for Obama is already being disseminated.
So we'll have a terrorist-lovin' socialist who stole the election running the country. Yeah, that won't be a problem for some people.
awesome
Typical Lib? Why would I define massive as being that large when as you yourself point out, as little as 400 voted would've won Gore the election? That just doesn't make sense. MASSIVE does not equal MEANINGFUL. MASSIVE fraud means a large number of votes. If you wanna claim that there can be MEANINGFUL or DETRIMENTAL fraud based on less than a thousand or ten thousand votes then do it. But that's not MASSIVE fraud.As you can see...there was no ace up my sleeve, it was just a simple question to let me know if it was worth the effort.
Try to keep your posts more substantive than the latest blurbs from the DailyKos and perhaps you will stay off my ignore list.
I will say you have kind of a re ed definition of voter fraud. Any fraud that results in the will of the people not being executed is IMO, massive, and since our President is elected by Electoral Votes and not the popular vote, it doesn't take that much to conduct MASSIVE voter fraud...in recent history that could be as little as under 400 votes in a small state(like New Mexico in 2000) or under 600 votes in a state with a MASSIVE electoral count like Florida(also in 2000)...
But based on your definition that sort of fraud wouldn't be massive...which IMO, confirms my opinion of the typical Lib on this forum.
So the evidence of massive democrat voter fraud under your own definition is what exactly?
I'm sure you were up in arms over Bush's Strike Force in 2000 and 2004.
If California and it's 50 something Electoral Votes were swung, would you consider that massive?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
