Schoolyard Taunting

Last edited by a moderator:
snafu said:
Ahhh that is a police officer doing his duty. Something he would do no matter who was speaking. .
Click to expand...

Because her statements weren't prepared beforehand or written on her hand, Palin can't retaliate or answer errant questions from the crowd. She certainly can't think for herself.

Jesus said to go two by two. The young man no doubt had someone there who agreed with him, but they were too frightened to speak.

One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you. Joshua 23:10
-
-
-
-
-

Now.... snaf... nice little diversion to switch the flow of the discussion back to something else. What? Too frightened to answer hugo?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hugo said:
Whatever you have been smoking must be good stuff. You realize that Obama did not win a single state by less than the total Libertarian vote do you not?
Click to expand...

You know, I wonder how much of this is you pretending not to understand the points.

He never said it was "JUST" the Libertarian voters, he said Ron Paul caused more splintering when he switched to the Libertarian party to get on the ticket. Way, way more than just the Libertarians moved their votes from McCain to Ron Paul and were wasting their votes.


My other main point is when people are over the top negative against people like McCain even though they call themselves conservative minded people, they also do damage to the overall turnout and support for McCain, in many ways groups like the Libertarians helped to sabotage McCains run for President from the inside out.




RO, you speak of it not being smart to keep doing the same thing over and over but you think it is better to make it worse?

There is an old saying, out of the frying pan, and into the fire. You can "CLAIM" McCain would have been more of the same but you don't know that for sure, nobody can know that for sure, I believe he would have been much better than Bush they that would have prompted more interest in the conservative mindset and we would have had way more good people getting involved in the conservative movements. What we can say for sure is there would not have been things like this healthcare law, this we know for sure and we also know for sure Obama would not have been able to sign this into law except for the splintering of the Conservatives who refused to support McCain and as such put Obama into the Whitehouse.


Consider this, in every poll conducted in America, the same results hold true, way more than half of America is middle right leaning or very right politically, not to the left. There had to be a reason all these normally right leaning people stayed home or wasted their votes on people who had no chance to win the election and instead helped Obama get elected. I agree that to a certain degree frustration from Bush helped to suppress the vote but I contend that it was the new nasty element from groups like the Libertarians that poisioned the well, gave the entire process a negative slant and ruined the situation for everyone.


This new nasty movement to rip people apart just because they are not 100% "pure" in your mind is not the way it is supposed to be.



Case in point, RO, why do you call snaf frightened? hugo dodges my questions like the plague almost every day and you never ask him if he is scared of me. So why now resort to calling snaf scared? Just because he does not agree with you there is a drive to put him down?


Hugo is wrong, it was a close race, until it turned nasty by people like the Libertarians and other splinter groups that changed the dynamics. You both dodges the fact that all the experts said the race was decided by the independents, but nobody can say for sure just how many conservative minded people just stayed home because the process was too dirty. Even IWS said he was not motivated to vote and stayed home. Even he was stuck in the negative air and did not exercise his voting rights, another conservative that fell victim of the nasty and hateful splintering.

You pretend to not understand how harmful the splintering is, why is that RO? Are you scared of admitting the truth? Can't be wrong now can you RO? You do not make any mistakes, so now you have to call a good man scared to cover up your mistakes. Snaf is not like me, I am rough and edgy in my discussions but he is not, your crass methods are exactly what I am talking about in the general puplic, good people like snaf get driven away by the nasty people who cannot allow them the respect they deserve to not be attacked just because they do not agree with you.


How about we get back to talking about topics and stop making this about attacking the people having the discussion?
 
You sure said a whole lot to say nothing at all. Just rehashing every allegation, accusation, and assertion that you have made thus far.

I guess if you tell a lie enough, like they do in Washington, it becomes the truth. I understand your little claim and I would admit my mistake if you can substantiate your claim. If you can't, I totally understand and we'll continue this pointless circular debate.

Again, I ask you to provide facts and stats verifying your claim that "libertarians put Obama in the White House" or continue to be embarrassed at every turn. You are making the accusations, you are making these claims... the least you can do is substantiate your assertion with some cold, hard evidence.

Until you can prove it, I will wait in abeyance for your remark.
 
So when hugo says it was assumed Obama would win that assumption is accepted as fact by you because he is saying what you want to hear to protect you from your own part in helping get Obama elected, but if I repeat what all the experts have said about this last election, me and all of them don't know what we are talking about because we do not agree with you?


Why are you better informed than people who do this for a living RO?


The answer is you know your wrong, and your hiding behing an absolute, because there is no way to say absolutely what the votes case were because the actual votes are kept hidden. It is an interesting possition but flawed because if your willing to say your vote was not wasted because it was assumed Obama was goign to win anyway, then you have already admitted that polls are a reliable media to make our decisions because that is all you had available to you before you cast your vote to help Obama win.


Now your trying to say these same polls that told you McCain was not going to win are not valid anymore because they agree with me and snaf.
 
Hmmm... hmmm...

Prove your case, big shot. And I'll consider the evidence. Until then, good luck with your diversions and dodges and attempts to insult my intelligence.
 
RoyalOrleans said:
Hmmm... hmmm...

Prove your case, big shot. And I'll consider the evidence. Until then, good luck with your diversions and dodges and attempts to insult my intelligence.
Click to expand...

Back at you big guy, prove that prior to any votes being cast that Obama had already won. That is the excuse you and hugo use to justify why you wasted your vote right? Why is it your fine with an assumption from polls to waste your vote, but when the same polls say it was the independents who put Obama into office, suddenly you claim that polls are not allowed as evidence to prove anything?


So you go first, without using opinion polls (as you say I can't do) prove to me that there was no way McCain could have won if all the splinered conservatives had supported him?

And don't forget the negativity factor, most of these same people who refused to vote for McCain (like you and hugo) were very vocal against McCain so prove to me how your negativity did not discourage other conservatives to not vote or waste their vote.
 
Times said:
Back at you big guy, prove that prior to any votes being cast that Obama had already won. That is the excuse you and hugo use to justify why you wasted your vote right? Why is it your fine with an assumption from polls to waste your vote, but when the same polls say it was the independents who put Obama into office, suddenly you claim that polls are not allowed as evidence to prove anything?


So you go first, without using opinion polls (as you say I can't do) prove to me that there was no way McCain could have won if all the splinered conservatives had supported him?

And don't forget the negativity factor, most of these same people who refused to vote for McCain (like you and hugo) were very vocal against McCain so prove to me how your negativity did not discourage other conservatives to not vote or waste their vote.
Click to expand...

Hey, hotshot. Ohh so clever! So neat! So wonderful! Turn the tables! Turn the flow of the discussion away from TJ! Wonderful bumbling move there TJ. Uh-uh... you don't get to turn the tide on me. I asked you FIRST. Prove your case to me. I asked you FIRST. Prove your case to me. I asked you FIRST.

We wouldn't be at this point, if you'd do as I requested originally. I asked you FIRST. You won't get a bit of satisfaction out of me until you reply with the facts that prove your case.

What? Fear the results? I bet you do!

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: TJ is being very typical of TJ at this point in time. He knows that he cannot prove his facts, so he turns the tables onto me and asks me to prove my case.

I'm not surprised and neither should you. TJ just hates that I have a leg up on him so he resorts to diversion by turning the tables.
 
Approximately 9% of Republicans voted for Obama. There are two paths, the socialist path of McCain, Palin and Obama or the capitalist path of Reagan, Goldwater and Paul. Commies like Snafu and TJ choose the socialist path. I choose the capitalist path. A slow descent into hell is still a descent into hell.
 
RoyalOrleans said:
Hey, hotshot. Ohh so clever! So neat! So wonderful! Turn the tables! Turn the flow of the discussion away from TJ! Wonderful bumbling move there TJ. Uh-uh... you don't get to turn the tide on me. I asked you FIRST. Prove your case to me. I asked you FIRST. Prove your case to me. I asked you FIRST.

We wouldn't be at this point, if you'd do as I requested originally. I asked you FIRST. You won't get a bit of satisfaction out of me until you reply with the facts that prove your case.

What? Fear the results? I bet you do!

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: TJ is being very typical of TJ at this point in time. He knows that he cannot prove his facts, so he turns the tables onto me and asks me to prove my case.

I'm not surprised and neither should you. TJ just hates that I have a leg up on him so he resorts to diversion by turning the tables.
Click to expand...



Your so darn funny RO.


The thing you did "FIRST" was to say that I could not use any kind of opinion polls or exit polls to support my possition so I am saying if that is "your" possition then you live by that standard "FIRST" and show me how your claim that your vote was not wasted because you knew McCain could not win using your own guidelines.


I already admitted about 15 posts back that I could not show that independents voted Obama into office without using polls, you created a question that could not be answered because you know there is nobody in the polling booth with each person. All we have is things like the exit polls and that is all we have ever had and we have to do the best we can using the tools at hand.



But my point is valid and that is why your running away from it like a scared little girl. If polls are not good enough to prove my point, then those same polls are not good enough for you to "assume" McCain could not win and waste your vote. You can't have it both ways RO, either polls are goos to use or not, your the guy who said I could not use polls, not me.



Again I rip you apart in a debate and all your concerned with is me instead of the topic, what is it about me that your so stuck on RO?





Hey RO, let's see if you challenge hugo's lost post there or if you only challenge what does not agree with you, lol.


But we do know that both of you voted for Obama by intentionally witholding your vote from the only conservative who had a chance of winning the election and being as you havce said in this thread that opinions and polls are not reasonable to use for election data you could not possibly have thought your vote was not needed to keep a pure socialist like Obama from office so you were actually intentionally helping Obama get elected.


We have people like you and hugo to thank for this healthcare law, thanks a lot hugo and RO.
 
Times said:
Your bias is showing RO. I am sure you will delete this again but if your allowing other people to flame, I will reply not with returned flames but simply to defend myself and point out the flames for what they are. Post #39 in Right or Wrong
Click to expand...

Times said:
But my point is valid and that is why your running away from it like a scared little girl.
Click to expand...

Now you resort to flames? Ohh... TJ. How does it feel to be back to your same old self? That old TJ who you've been trying to repress for so long has finally reared his head. Welcome back, old hat.

I guess you never had any real intention of changing, huh? That you wanted everyone else to swaddle you with attention and shower you with affection through the "Times Hush" thread. Once you have their affections, you use their goodwill against them as soon as there is a conflicting viewpoint or a slight difference in outlook.

"Ohhhh... woe is me!". You play the victim card well.

So now you flame me after posting in a different thread that you will only expose a flame, but not return one. Hypocrite! You point out every little idiosyncrasy that could be misconstrued as a flame, but you don't think that it applies to you. The jig is up, TJ, we all know what type of person that you really are and we all know what you're capable.

So I have inserted the quotes into your signatures. Not for a cheap laugh, not for a reason to ride you, but a reminder to you that we (the people of this forum) know who you really are.

-------

If you want to respond to this remark, TJ. Then I'd suggest doing it in a PM.

-------

Now... back on topic.

You still can't turn the tables on to me, TJ. No matter what you say, how you say it, who you say it to, you can not take away the fact that you never said that it is your "opinion". Instead, you assert the thoughts of "experts" on the subject as the truth. It might be true, but there is certainly not much proof other than exit poll results.

And I never said anything about not using exit polls. I was referring to all the stupid, c ckeyed opinion polls that plagued the Internet and mainstream days, weeks, months leading up to the election. An opinion poll is a survey done before the actual poll, whereas an exit poll is a post poll survey. Either of which are speculative. Though I'm more comfortable with an exit poll, because in an opinion poll the question might be directed at a group that doesn't even vote.

I never asserted myself with God-to-honest facts, I have always contended that what I say is a matter of opinion. Thus "I think", "My opinion", or "Perhaps..." peppering my remarks. If you believe that everything I type is FACT... then do some homework. And if you can't tell a difference, then crack a dictionary and look up "opinion".

You can't believe everything that you read.

-----

Hugo posted it. It is up to hugo to decide if he wants to or not.
 
First of all that was not a flame, it was an example, a description, like blue as a clear shy, warm as the sun, old as dirt, running away like a scared little girl was not calling anyone a scard girl, just offering an example of running away.

Interesting you have to try and force what I say into an attack, are you really that desperate to try and bring me down RO? You said you wanted me banned the day before you were promoted, I guess your trying hard to make my removal look reasonable but there simply is no way you can do so, I have not flammed you or anyone else.





Now back to your little dance of words dancing.

I already admitted there was no possible way to say who voted for what without any shread of doubt, that is why you asked that specific question to hide behind creating impossible xonditions of perfection.


So then I returned your own standard back at you, if it is unreasonable to use polls and opinions from experts to decide what happened in the election, then that same standard applies to you and hugo when you claim you only voted to help Obama because it was assumed Obama would win anyway. The standard you set goes both ways RO, either using opinions and polls is reasonable or it is not. If your using polls to waste your vote is reasonable, then my use of polls should also be reasonable.


Your playing a double standard RO, why?
 
Times said:
First of all that was not a flame, it was an example, a description, like blue as a clear shy, warm as the sun, old as dirt, running away like a scared little girl was not calling anyone a scard girl, just offering an example of running away.

Interesting you have to try and force what I say into an attack, are you really that desperate to try and bring me down RO? You said you wanted me banned the day before you were promoted, I guess your trying hard to make my removal look reasonable but there simply is no way you can do so, I have not flammed you or anyone else.
Click to expand...

I asked you to respond to this in a PM to me.

You flamed me. A flame, no matter the context, is a comment meant to hurt the addressee. I mean, those are almost your words... verbatim. Do I need to drag out all of your posts regarding what you believe a flame is? I would be happy to, TJ, but you might not want to... I mean they will prove that you draw the flames out of other member's comments. You turn, twist, and pervert the words of others to make it sound like you are being victimized with a flame.

Sounds kind of like the statement that I made to you, huh? What? You called me out on that and we swapped a few PMs and I made the conscious effort to move forward. You broke your word when you left that remark. Don't think the same rules for flaming does not apply to you because you can justify it as a "comparison".

Yeah... you compared my manhood to that of a little girl. That's a flame where most people come from. I am highly offended, but not surprised as I knew all along that you had no desire for changing yourself for the better.


Times said:
Now back to your little dance of words dancing.

I already admitted there was no possible way to say who voted for what without any shread of doubt, that is why you asked that specific question to hide behind creating impossible xonditions of perfection.

So then I returned your own standard back at you, if it is unreasonable to use polls and opinions from experts to decide what happened in the election, then that same standard applies to you and hugo when you claim you only voted to help Obama because it was assumed Obama would win anyway. The standard you set goes both ways RO, either using opinions and polls is reasonable or it is not. If your using polls to waste your vote is reasonable, then my use of polls should also be reasonable.

Your playing a double standard RO, why?
Click to expand...

You should spend a lot less time accusing me of this, offensively flaming me for that, and more time producing some statistics to back up your claim.
 
I simply told the truth RO, there is nothing personal about it, just your direct actions to change a non-flame into a flame for your own purposes.

There is no way to say "running away like a scared little girl" can be taken personally, it is a description only, a point made to show the person is avoiding something, nothing more, I was just try8ing to make it sound funny because this round and round of you dodging direct questions get a tad boring sometimes.


I never at any time attempted to put you down as a person RO, there is the difference between what you and hugo do, and what I do. I attack the topic, I get serious about it sure, but I do not hate you or hugo for not agreeing with me, and from some of the things you guys say about me, it sure seems like your taking everything personal.
 
Times said:
I simply told the truth RO, there is nothing personal about it, just your direct actions to change a non-flame into a flame for your own purposes.

There is no way to say "running away like a scared little girl" can be taken personally, it is a description only, a point made to show the person is avoiding something, nothing more, I was just try8ing to make it sound funny because this round and round of you dodging direct questions get a tad boring sometimes.


I never at any time attempted to put you down as a person RO, there is the difference between what you and hugo do, and what I do. I attack the topic, I get serious about it sure, but I do not hate you or hugo for not agreeing with me, and from some of the things you guys say about me, it sure seems like your taking everything personal.
Click to expand...

Point blank, TJ: you flamed me. And I am offended. I will never, ever forget this gross injustice as I thought that you were a man who stuck to their guns. As seen here...

Why do you feel it necessary to flame someone in the process of a debate your losing? I just do not understand why you act this way but I will be the bigger man and not return your flames, I point them out though to show how it is not me who is starting stuff - TJ
Click to expand...

Then again, I wasn't surprised. You never had any inclination to change or you'd pick a better comparison to make. So we are at the point we are today. Welcome back, TJ.

As I have always contended: flames are subjective to the reader.

---------

You should concentrate on providing some evidence to back up your claim instead of making concessions and excuses to insult me.
 
RoyalOrleans said:
Point blank, TJ: you flamed me. And I am offended. I will never, ever forget this gross injustice as I thought that you were a man who stuck to their guns.

Then again, I wasn't surprised. You never had any inclination to change or you'd pick a better comparison to make. So we are at the point we are today. Welcome back, TJ.

As I have always contended: flames are subjective to the reader.
Click to expand...



OKAY, I know your faking to not understand but for everyone else let me break this down.

"your running away like a scared little girl" is a descriptive comment to be sure, but what is it describing?

The first thing we have to look at it the context, RO wants everyone to ignore the context and is trying to draw focus down to a couple words taken out of context but let me take a moment and bring the comment back to the context RO is trying to destroy.


The first part says "your running away". This is the point, my comment was that RO dodged the point because he knew he could not respond to that point and tried to change the subject or otherwise avoid it. So that was my point, he was running away, now the second part was describing the first, I was giving example of the "type" of running away I thought his running most closely resembled. So "running" was the point, "like a scared little girl" was the type of running. There was no flame.


I am the only person trying to leave behind the past, I am not tossing flames, my comments are not intended to demean or belittle while RO is editing my signatures with the intent to belittle and demean me instead and this is all because I called him down a few days ago about his comment about my manhood. RO knew he was wrong to behave that way so does he simply admit he was wrong and move foward? No, now he is scouring my every post trying to "get even" for me pointing out his flames.



RoyalOrleans said:
You should concentrate on providing some evidence to back up your claim instead of making concessions and excuses to insult me.
Click to expand...

As you should live up to the same standard of evidence you try to impose on those who do not agree with you. If using polls was reasonable for you to waste your vote and help Obama win, then it is reasonable for me to use the same kinds of polls afor my point but you intentionally exclude polls only from my side of the discussion.


But you creating this false claim of flames from me is your way of dodging this point, your running away again.
 
No matter what your intent might have been, you still flamed me.

No matter how you try to justify the comparison, you still flamed me.

If you didn't want me to look at the context, then you would have used a different comparison. Instead you used a comparison equating my manhood to that of a little girl.

That's a flame.

--------------------------

You do a fantastic job of diversion, TJ. Concentrate on proving your point and not so much on what you think that I am doing.
 
Pending further review of all posts within, this thread is officially gone off the deep end and will be moved. TJ has officially ruined another debate with flames, a claim that the other debater is running from an imagined something, and being rather typical at this point. I have no other choice.

I will be moving it to the Free For All forum where it will fit in nicely with all the other crap.


---------------

TJ...

If you want to flame me here... go right ahead. I mean, flame me if that what makes you feel better.
 
Awsome, you moved the entire conversation and transformed what you could not answer into an excuse to throw it away, your the master at dodging questions your incapable of answering RO.


Saying you like to run away is not really doing your skill justice my friend.



Only you take enjoyment at trying to hurt other people RO, that is why you edited my signature and even attempted to sneak in a comment I did not make so you could again try to make me look like the bad guy, but I did not start this RO, your the agressor RO, not me, I actually like you most of the time, even when you behave like this I find you to be very funny and awsome to have around for entertainement.
 
I will, however, segregate all of the ON TOPIC BS from this new Free For All thread.

--------

I answered all of your questions, TJ. Do you just see my response, skip over it, and then light into me?
 

Similar threads

grtrat1
How did you get started
Replies
8
Views
518
ridingred
ridingred
S
NEWBIZ RESALE RIGHTS STORE - BUY IT ONCE & PROFIT FOR LIFE
Replies
0
Views
341
snakeair
S
S
NEWBIZ RESALE RIGHTS STORE - BUY IT ONCE & PROFIT FOR LIFE
Replies
0
Views
251
snakeair
S
S
I'M EARNING MULTIPLE PAYMENTS USING THESE PROGRAMS
Replies
0
Views
218
snakeair
S
Chi
For TimesJoke so we don't further derail the "Virginity" thread
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
4K
RoyalOrleans
RoyalOrleans
Back
Top