|
Post by amyghost on Jul 22, 2018 16:35:59 GMT
"You believe the law says they have no rights, no matter how many witness or victims come forward, you seem to think that means people can't use their own judgement to fire someone, even though no one is going to jail without a trial. Go back and read your posts if you like, I'm not as obsessed with this conversation as you are."
The obsessed one here is you--so obsessed in fact, that, not only are you not providing any quotes from my previous posts, you're now doubling down on your prior idiotic fabrications.
As to 'firing someone', I've expressed no opinion on that at any place in this thread. I suggest you should go back and read my posts, as you seem to be terminally confused at this point as to what anyone has said here.
You argue like the typical SJW brat--you can't win any debates through the use of your own skills or logic, so you simply resort to distortions, fabrications and outright lies and then cling to them like grim death, in lieu of anything better. Really, with a skill set like that, you should be working for The Donald himself. When all else fails, you begin flinging poo like the typical internet baboon you show every apparent sign of being.
One more time: Post a quote from any one of my posts here that assert I've stated victims have no rights, should have no legal hearing, or should be ignored. Until you can perform this simple task, you're not worth listening to, except maybe by the choir of like deadheads to whom you probably spend your days pontificating.
|
|
|
Post by James Bond on Jul 22, 2018 16:39:51 GMT
" You believe the law says they have no rights, no matter how many witness or victims come forward, you seem to think that means people can't use their own judgement to fire someone, even though no one is going to jail without a trial. Go back and read your posts if you like, I'm not as obsessed with this conversation as you are." The obsessed one here is you--so obsessed in fact, that, not only are you not providing any quotes from my previous posts, you're now doubling down on your prior idiotic fabrications. As to 'firing someone', I've expressed no opinion on that at any place in this thread. I suggest you should go back and read my posts, as you seem to be terminally confused at this point as to what anyone has said here. You argue like the typical SJW brat--you can't win any debates through the use of your own skills or logic, so you simply resort to distortions, fabrications and outright lies and then cling to them like grim death, in lieu of anything better. When all else fails, you begin flinging poo like the typical internet baboon you show every apparent sign of being. One more time: Post a quote from any one of my posts here that assert I've stated victims have no rights, should have no legal hearing, or should be ignored. Until you can perform this simple task, you're not worth listening to, except maybe by the choir of like deadheads to whom you probably spend your days pontificating. What he'll say, "You know what you said. Go back and quote your own posts."
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 22, 2018 16:45:40 GMT
" You believe the law says they have no rights, no matter how many witness or victims come forward, you seem to think that means people can't use their own judgement to fire someone, even though no one is going to jail without a trial. Go back and read your posts if you like, I'm not as obsessed with this conversation as you are." The obsessed one here is you--so obsessed in fact, that, not only are you not providing any quotes from my previous posts, you're now doubling down on your prior idiotic fabrications. As to 'firing someone', I've expressed no opinion on that at any place in this thread. I suggest you should go back and read my posts, as you seem to be terminally confused at this point as to what anyone has said here. You argue like the typical SJW brat--you can't win any debates through the use of your own skills or logic, so you simply resort to distortions, fabrications and outright lies and then cling to them like grim death, in lieu of anything better. When all else fails, you begin flinging poo like the typical internet baboon you show every apparent sign of being. One more time: Post a quote from any one of my posts here that assert I've stated victims have no rights, should have no legal hearing, or should be ignored. Until you can perform this simple task, you're not worth listening to, except maybe by the choir of like deadheads to whom you probably spend your days pontificating. What he'll say, "You know what you said. Go back and quote your own posts." I know. And what the hell, why do that when he can go back and mis-quote them for me. Probably, by now, in his sleep.
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 23, 2018 23:21:11 GMT
" You believe the law says they have no rights, no matter how many witness or victims come forward, you seem to think that means people can't use their own judgement to fire someone, even though no one is going to jail without a trial. Go back and read your posts if you like, I'm not as obsessed with this conversation as you are." The obsessed one here is you--so obsessed in fact, that, not only are you not providing any quotes from my previous posts, you're now doubling down on your prior idiotic fabrications. As to 'firing someone', I've expressed no opinion on that at any place in this thread. I suggest you should go back and read my posts, as you seem to be terminally confused at this point as to what anyone has said here. You argue like the typical SJW brat--you can't win any debates through the use of your own skills or logic, so you simply resort to distortions, fabrications and outright lies and then cling to them like grim death, in lieu of anything better. Really, with a skill set like that, you should be working for The Donald himself. When all else fails, you begin flinging poo like the typical internet baboon you show every apparent sign of being. One more time: Post a quote from any one of my posts here that assert I've stated victims have no rights, should have no legal hearing, or should be ignored. Until you can perform this simple task, you're not worth listening to, except maybe by the choir of like deadheads to whom you probably spend your days pontificating. You're calling me an SJW? I'm definitely cool with being called a Warrior.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 24, 2018 11:49:57 GMT
" You believe the law says they have no rights, no matter how many witness or victims come forward, you seem to think that means people can't use their own judgement to fire someone, even though no one is going to jail without a trial. Go back and read your posts if you like, I'm not as obsessed with this conversation as you are." The obsessed one here is you--so obsessed in fact, that, not only are you not providing any quotes from my previous posts, you're now doubling down on your prior idiotic fabrications. As to 'firing someone', I've expressed no opinion on that at any place in this thread. I suggest you should go back and read my posts, as you seem to be terminally confused at this point as to what anyone has said here. You argue like the typical SJW brat--you can't win any debates through the use of your own skills or logic, so you simply resort to distortions, fabrications and outright lies and then cling to them like grim death, in lieu of anything better. Really, with a skill set like that, you should be working for The Donald himself. When all else fails, you begin flinging poo like the typical internet baboon you show every apparent sign of being. One more time: Post a quote from any one of my posts here that assert I've stated victims have no rights, should have no legal hearing, or should be ignored. Until you can perform this simple task, you're not worth listening to, except maybe by the choir of like deadheads to whom you probably spend your days pontificating. You're calling me an SJW? I'm definitely cool with being called a Warrior. No, you're definitely no warrior. A mendacious liar who can't accurately quote their debating opponent without resorting to distortions and outright fabrication because you lack the ability to debate with their actual words as opposed to your made-up ones, yes, you are that. The sort of poseur who lays claim to liberal sentiments but will gladly stoop to the techniques of Team Trump to salvage your illegitimate tactics, yes, you are that. A childish 'net baboon who wants validation through their internet mouthiness as opposed to--in all likelihood--any real world action, yes, you are that. A 'warrior'? A brave and truthful individual who values integrity above all things, and who would consider the sort of half-assed evasions and bratty behaviors you've displayed in place of anything resembling honest defense of your points so far beneath them that they'd rather do almost anything than submit to such actions, and most certainly would prefer honesty, even if that honesty doesn't work in their favor, to resorting to them? No, son. No way in hell are you that. An SJW in the most pejorative sense of the term, yes. A 'Warrior' ?--don't embarrass yourself.
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 25, 2018 20:18:34 GMT
You're calling me an SJW? I'm definitely cool with being called a Warrior. No, you're definitely no warrior. A mendacious liar who can't accurately quote their debating opponent without resorting to distortions and outright fabrication because you lack the ability to debate with their actual words as opposed to your made-up ones, yes, you are that. The sort of poseur who lays claim to liberal sentiments but will gladly stoop to the techniques of Team Trump to salvage your illegitimate tactics, yes, you are that. A childish 'net baboon who wants validation through their internet mouthiness as opposed to--in all likelihood--any real world action, yes, you are that. A 'warrior'? A brave and truthful individual who values integrity above all things, and who would consider the sort of half-assed evasions and bratty behaviors you've displayed in place of anything resembling honest defense of your points so far beneath them that they'd rather do almost anything than submit to such actions, and most certainly would prefer honesty, even if that honesty doesn't work in their favor, to resorting to them? No, son. No way in hell are you that. An SJW in the most pejorative sense of the term, yes. A 'Warrior' ?--don't embarrass yourself. You did call me a warrior though, so that's cool. Also mendacious liar means "liar liar".
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 25, 2018 21:09:37 GMT
No, you're definitely no warrior. A mendacious liar who can't accurately quote their debating opponent without resorting to distortions and outright fabrication because you lack the ability to debate with their actual words as opposed to your made-up ones, yes, you are that. The sort of poseur who lays claim to liberal sentiments but will gladly stoop to the techniques of Team Trump to salvage your illegitimate tactics, yes, you are that. A childish 'net baboon who wants validation through their internet mouthiness as opposed to--in all likelihood--any real world action, yes, you are that. A 'warrior'? A brave and truthful individual who values integrity above all things, and who would consider the sort of half-assed evasions and bratty behaviors you've displayed in place of anything resembling honest defense of your points so far beneath them that they'd rather do almost anything than submit to such actions, and most certainly would prefer honesty, even if that honesty doesn't work in their favor, to resorting to them? No, son. No way in hell are you that. An SJW in the most pejorative sense of the term, yes. A 'Warrior' ?--don't embarrass yourself. You did call me a warrior though, so that's cool. Also mendacious liar means "liar liar". My goodness, if it isn't Mr. Mendacity, back for his daily dose. Stiil can't come up with those simple quotes, so more childish evasions will have to do, I guess. Put in your application for becoming Donald Trump's latest press secretary yet? You have all the right qualifications.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 25, 2018 22:48:09 GMT
Alright he's obviously fine and topic went off the deep end. Locking the thread.
|
|