Hey dipshit, I haven't seen that post till now, and if you don't reply direct when conversing then you need to direct comment @. I have twenty alerts every five minutes. 1) Trump hasn't made any childish threat. He has threatened to sue any that pursue false allegations. They haven't pursued it and it is his right to protect himself. 2)He hasn't taken office yet and if he doesn't pursue Clinton it means he is taking the high road and concentrating/not distracting what he promised, making America great again. 3) I want people making decisions about righting the ship that have established they know how to be successful. You have something against personal success? Trump won't be coddled and coerced by special interest, politicians, or anyone not on board with erasing bad Obama policy. 4) Trump has been married three times, his track record with women isn't solid by appearance...doesn't bother me. Won't keep him from administering to the people. 5) I am for being defended, if the powers that be see an imbalance in nuclear capability that is an option. I would be more impressed if he had a stance to push more nuclear energy.

There you go liar, the first time you or your sock has asked me a direct question and I answered them. You won't like the answers, but that is your problem, not mine. You are pathetic and I've proven you also to be a bitch. There you go, bluff my ass. You idiots don't impress or intimidate, anytime losers.

 

Wrong thread bluffer but don't worry I will fix that.

PS Even before the edit time ran out I have already proven you are lying bluffer. You claim here you didn't see the post until now but you only posted this about 10 minutes ago and you were posting a response to your bluff on the So I'm Curious thread nearly 30 minutes ago.

What a lying bluffing loser you are.

 

The time stamps on the posts on both threads are right there and all any fool, including you, has to do is look at them to know you are lying.

And as I just pointed out on the other thread you are one bitter, angry, and delusional loser which I might add has a tendency to just babble and repeat yourself once you are busted.

 

You are a terrible liar. And when I say terrible I mean just really bad at it where your lies are so stupid they just jump off the page.

Such as if you get 20 alerts every five minutes how is it you only have 5,000 posts in two years time? That's only 6.8 posts per day and yet you claim you get 20 alerts every five minutes. Just what kind of fool would believe that?

FeltPlay

 

The best way to win a debate here on XNXX, is to provide factual mother fucking proof of said argument.

Some here, not to mention any names, seem to think that assumptions are proof, some here truly think that speculation is proof, some here truly think that consensus is proof, some here truly think that perpetual lies consistently and constantly recorded and told by the staterun leftist media is proof.

W3ith all of that said....

Stumbler, where is the factual proof that Putin/Russia swayed the election away from Clinton, where is the proof that Putin/Russia hacked the unprotected Clinton servers and the DNC servers to hand the election to Trump?

Where is the proof that Trump got more votes due to the hacked e-mail releases?

Stumbler, it seems you're having a losing record as of late.

 

Now another way you surely know you are winning is when someone like @M4MPetCock just starts screaming hysterical lies at the top of his lungs.

 

I often agree with you and always like you.

But that is not the point I wish to make here.

Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard would sometimes deliberately get their opponents so angry that they could not think straight. This particularly worked against Sonny Liston, and in Leonard's second fight with Roberto Duran.

 

That is often true for Rush Limbaugh, and sometimes true for FOX News. It is not true for The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. These are among the most respected newspapers in the English language. If one of them reports something that is not true it will print a retraction.

 

This is an example of what the OP is talking about. When I get this kind of content free insult, I know I have won the argument.

 

Republicans are more frequently reactionaries or right wing radicals than true conservatives. Calvin Coolidge was a reactionary who tried to roll back as much of the reforms of the Progressive Era as he could.

Ronald Reagan was a right wing radical. The idea that cutting taxes while raising defense spending could balance the budget was a very radical idea. It proved to be a very mistaken idea. Unfortunately, Republicans still have not learned.

I would say that Dwight Eisenhower was a true conservative. He recognized that the reforms of the New Deal were popular with the voters, and that they had become part of the status quo. He tried to administer those reforms better and less expensively.

The following letter explains President Eisenhower's philosophy concerning the reforms of President Franklin Roosevelt.

--------

Letter to Edgar Newton Eisenhower
Dwight D. Eisenhower
November 8, 1954

[T]he Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.4 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-edgar-newton-eisenhower/

 

Well yes.
But, see, his hand has been photoshopped
And he's still wearing his RED tie too long, Way too long. Must be some Phallic thing.
Ant it clashes with his orange paint
And now that he's president, can't we get him a decent haircut?

So yeah, evidence of a win, but Goddamit! The Russians did it!

 

Now you can tell you're winning BIGLEY when someone makes a special thread for you just to lie out their PR hack ass.

Time for more socks.

And of c0urse the easy win when someone like RandyKinght can only resort to the old Ad Hominem logical fallacy of attacking the source because they can't even dispute what the source says let alone prove the source wrong and/or false.

And to make it even more hilarious this is coming from a guy who posts The American Patriot as gospel when the American Patriot just makes unfounded accusations with no links at all to back up what he is saying.

 

Here is how you know who won.....

 

Here is how you know you lost

 

And again you can tell you are winning when someone not only takes the bait but tries to change the subject with something really stupid.

Bonus points for making someone flaunt their butthurt.

 

Blinded by butthurt and stuck on stupid.

 

Wait...that?

Not this?



Or this?




Man....winning is hard.

College is hard.



Ever seeing Bernie give a speech on anything without THIS image coming to mind will be hard.



On the other hand, I certainly will not be hard.

 

Just keep those logical fallacies coming.

I love winning.

 

You're confused kid, you are not being presented an award for ''winning'', it's merely an award for ''participation'', merit-less as that is.

 

Alright ....... still on the front page.