Reply With Quote
Usually, nothing screams "winning" on the internet more than personal attacks.
Obviously.Well "winning" definitely isn't an out of work paralegal who spends his time online all the time instead of working, and then ignoring a thread about the guy he voted for murdering Americans without due process. I know, I know you don't have to post about every single topic all the time.Very telling though that you'd rather jump on a troll bandwagon instead of dicussing the issues of your murderous president of innocent women and babies, and even Americans. Go ahead though, it's obvious you have no clients. lol
Usually, nothing screams "winning" on the internet more than personal attacks.
Maybe you should stop doing them in your own cowardly way. You should be somewhere supporting a child murderer or giving people details on referees or maybe you were you laid off from that too.
lol SA210, claiming personal credit for the news via linking it here..
(don't sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back)
lol Another weak attempt at twisting what I say out of pure desperation and the confidence that fellow trolls will jump on that bandwagon
Well, here we go again: the only way to think that Obama is wrong on drones is to post something on SpursTalk saying that I think Obama is wrong on drones and an utter disappointment with regard to civil rights and civil liberties. Since I haven't posted that on SpursTalk to the satisfaction of SA210 (who has a remarkably deep knowledge of the things that I tend to post about), clearly, the only reasonable conclusion about me is one that I support drone strikes and think Obama's record on civil rights and liberties is stellar.
Unquestionably, the only way to have any opinion about a political topic is to post those thoughts on SpursTalk.
No wonder you can't make it as a lawyer, you have horrible arguments, and pretty boring too lol I just find it funny that you will skip those important issues in a political forum but then jump on the bandwagon of other trolls to try to insult someone. Damn you suck lol Oh I know why you did that, you didn't like how i pointed out Obama and Dems hypocricy on NDAA. What a backbone you have there.
Really, when a thread has reached several pages in length and one who has been busy with other things really has nothing specific to add to the discussion, it should be nevertheless obligatory to post agreement or disagreement just to register such so that those who worry about who's on which side of any given topic can effectively count heads.
also, SA210 ignores previous, pertinent threads. there's no small amount of running commentary on this that and the other.
totally notwithstanding, it's like what's already there isn't even there.
SA210 doesn't even want to find out who might agree with him.
you resent the participation of others in general? it shows . . .
Not trying to insult anyone -- just think its funny when anyone claims a "win" on SpursTalk. If you were insulted, I'm sorry.
I don't have a problem with you pointing out hypocrisy because I share that view in this instance. I'm not sure if its breathtaking hubris to assume that my silence equates to disagreement with your position or deep insecurity. Regardless, as we've previously discussed, you can rest assured that my silence on an issue does not mean that I disagree with you.
I just find it funny that you will come to a political forum, not to discuss anything truly important but to try and jump on a bandwagin of someone else who is full of crap.
Assuming legislation like the current NDAA and the CIA's stance on torture are only the beginnings of more nefarious occurrences... How long before one party having just had a strong election, decides to consolidate power? Their political opponents start disappearing, only to subsequently reappear, confess communicating key information and aid to the GUN (global underground network of terrorists), and willingly be hanged for their treason? Fifty years? 30?
Yeah I've been reading of Orwell lately, I'll admit, but these types of events aren't exactly without precedence. The Nazis had their Night of the Long Knives, for instance. There was the end of Trotsky in Red Russia. Eventually, an unchecked government becomes power mad and imprisons or kills the opponents. Orwell was very forward thinking, but not even he imagined as perfect a state enemy as the ambiguous terrorists and hackers.
FWD did not do so, you only assumed he did.
um, yes, you did. pretty obviously.
I see FWD's posts as being neither supportive nor hostile toward me.
OTOH, insofar as they tend to chide the prevailing incivility, perhaps I wore the cross-hairs too . . .
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-12-2013 at 02:31 PM.
the part about people submitting willingly to hanging seems overoptimistic, but the broad outline's already there: endless war, unlimited battlefield.
recently reread most of "1984" on the ter. timely.
highly recommended.
good airplane book, too
lol I know you're puzzled because you don't know what ur talking about lol Moron
whatever you say, wolf boy.
You have turned two threads today into nothing but trolling, and away from the issues.Great job. You are officially a troll
So making fun of your hubris for declaring yourself 'thread winner' instead of actually arguing your position in a measured manner is proof you were right to assume FWD disagrees with your point and justifies your bush-league ad hominems against him?
http://www.iberianature.com/spainblo...sierra-morena/You have turned two threads today into nothing but trolling, and away from the issues.
I already proved it, thats why they are mad now. Winehole has simply become a troll because of it. lol
congratulations, you are now officially a wolf boy . . .
lol proof.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions