User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 9:45:23 AM EDT
[#1]
 " />
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:01:12 AM EDT
[#2]
Since you like the definition of MOST:
Which Republican candidate has received the MOST votes? Trump Which Republican candidate has won the MOST states? Trump Which Republican candidate has been awarded the MOST delegates? Trump The reason your argument is pedantic is the current scenario. We started with a large field of candidates and only a fucking idiot would expect anyone to win the majority of votes. He hasn't won most of the votes cast, but he has won the most votes. I got accused of being pedantic for a joking exchange, but you're being serious. Btw this isn't the first time you've been accused of being pedantic. Quote Historyand yet again in this thread. The original post said "Most people vote for Trump". It wasnt "Trump received the most votes" or "Trump won the most states". Once again, most people DID NOT VOTE for Trump You cant just redefine words to meet your perception OK. Maybe i can dumb this down for you... Which of these two statements is correct: A....Most people voted for Trump B....Most people did not vote for Trump It can only be one or the other but before you answer, here is some reference material for you Popular Vote Totals: Trump................7,863,052' Cruz...................5,782,142 Rubio.................3,470,384 Kasich................2,822,210 Take all the time you need... Ok, maybe I can dumb this down for you. I'm not real hopeful, since you apparently didn't read anything I wrote, but here goes: only a FUCKING IDIOT would think someone could win the majority of votes in a large field like the Republicans had this year. Take all the time you need. I read it as A. Most people voted for Trump B. Most people voted against Cruz |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:13:02 AM EDT
[#3]
How's that evidence coming along? No photoshops, no NE article, no supposed madam whose lawyer supposedly has phone records and in case he is whacked, no shenanigans. 100% concrete undeniable proof..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:17:20 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since you like the definition of MOST: Which Republican candidate has received the MOST votes? Trump Which Republican candidate has won the MOST states? Trump Which Republican candidate has been awarded the MOST delegates? Trump The reason your argument is pedantic is the current scenario. We started with a large field of candidates and only a fucking idiot would expect anyone to win the majority of votes. He hasn't won most of the votes cast, but he has won the most votes. I got accused of being pedantic for a joking exchange, but you're being serious. Btw this isn't the first time you've been accused of being pedantic. I read it as A. Most people voted for Trump B. Most people voted against Cruz Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since you like the definition of MOST: Which Republican candidate has received the MOST votes? Trump Which Republican candidate has won the MOST states? Trump Which Republican candidate has been awarded the MOST delegates? Trump The reason your argument is pedantic is the current scenario. We started with a large field of candidates and only a fucking idiot would expect anyone to win the majority of votes. He hasn't won most of the votes cast, but he has won the most votes. I got accused of being pedantic for a joking exchange, but you're being serious. Btw this isn't the first time you've been accused of being pedantic. and yet again in this thread. The original post said "Most people vote for Trump". It wasnt "Trump received the most votes" or "Trump won the most states". Once again, most people DID NOT VOTE for Trump You cant just redefine words to meet your perception OK. Maybe i can dumb this down for you... Which of these two statements is correct: A....Most people voted for Trump B....Most people did not vote for Trump It can only be one or the other but before you answer, here is some reference material for you Popular Vote Totals: Trump................7,863,052' Cruz...................5,782,142 Rubio.................3,470,384 Kasich................2,822,210 Take all the time you need... Ok, maybe I can dumb this down for you. I'm not real hopeful, since you apparently didn't read anything I wrote, but here goes: only a FUCKING IDIOT would think someone could win the majority of votes in a large field like the Republicans had this year. Take all the time you need. I read it as A. Most people voted for Trump B. Most people voted against Cruz yep, you cant tell which candidate those folks would vote for, also someone needs a time out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:23:19 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be a bad business decision. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hypothetically, assuming convention shenanigans and the installation of an establishment candidate, he'd have a good shot at a solid second place finish in the general on an independent run. It would wind up being a contest between his ego and his financial sense. It would be a bad business decision. I agree. An indictment might shift the calculus a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:28:21 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. An indictment might shift the calculus a bit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hypothetically, assuming convention shenanigans and the installation of an establishment candidate, he'd have a good shot at a solid second place finish in the general on an independent run. It would wind up being a contest between his ego and his financial sense. It would be a bad business decision. I agree. An indictment might shift the calculus a bit. Yeah, that would make things a bit interesting. Not sure how that will shake out yet, I think an indictment is coming but it depends on when. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:32:08 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How's that evidence coming along? No photoshops, no NE article, no supposed madam whose lawyer supposedly has phone records and in case he is whacked, no shenanigans. 100% concrete undeniable proof.. That's because it doesn't exist... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:34:35 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How often does Anon actually deliever on this shit? I mean they got some Scientology stuff, busted some people killing kittens, nothing else all that notable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's been a week. Has Anonymous released that video yet? That is a good question. Still waiting on all the evidence. It is apparent that many here have already seen the evidence. I wish they would share. How often does Anon actually deliever on this shit? I mean they got some Scientology stuff, busted some people killing kittens, nothing else all that notable. don't forget terrorizing innocent people after the Boston Marathon Bombing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:45:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: yep, you cant tell which candidate those folks would vote for, also someone needs a time out. I believe we are both Cruz voters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:45:33 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, that would make things a bit interesting. Not sure how that will shake out yet, I think an indictment is coming but it depends on when. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hypothetically, assuming convention shenanigans and the installation of an establishment candidate, he'd have a good shot at a solid second place finish in the general on an independent run. It would wind up being a contest between his ego and his financial sense. It would be a bad business decision. I agree. An indictment might shift the calculus a bit. Yeah, that would make things a bit interesting. Not sure how that will shake out yet, I think an indictment is coming but it depends on when. I would say there's not much left in this cycle that would surprise me but that's not really how this cycle has gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:47:02 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, that would make things a bit interesting. Not sure how that will shake out yet, I think an indictment is coming but it depends on when. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hypothetically, assuming convention shenanigans and the installation of an establishment candidate, he'd have a good shot at a solid second place finish in the general on an independent run. It would wind up being a contest between his ego and his financial sense. It would be a bad business decision. I agree. An indictment might shift the calculus a bit. Yeah, that would make things a bit interesting. Not sure how that will shake out yet, I think an indictment is coming but it depends on when. I think if an indictment hits before the convention, Bernie would get the nomination. He's harder for the Republicans to beat than Hillary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:48:26 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would say there's not much left in this cycle that would surprise me but that's not really how this cycle has gone. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hypothetically, assuming convention shenanigans and the installation of an establishment candidate, he'd have a good shot at a solid second place finish in the general on an independent run. It would wind up being a contest between his ego and his financial sense. It would be a bad business decision. I agree. An indictment might shift the calculus a bit. Yeah, that would make things a bit interesting. Not sure how that will shake out yet, I think an indictment is coming but it depends on when. I would say there's not much left in this cycle that would surprise me but that's not really how this cycle has gone. If you had told me a year ago that the 2 candidates with the highest number of delegates would be Trump and Cruz, I'd have said you were crazy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:58:36 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yep, you cant tell which candidate those folks would vote for, also someone needs a time out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since you like the definition of MOST: Which Republican candidate has received the MOST votes? Trump Which Republican candidate has won the MOST states? Trump Which Republican candidate has been awarded the MOST delegates? Trump The reason your argument is pedantic is the current scenario. We started with a large field of candidates and only a fucking idiot would expect anyone to win the majority of votes. He hasn't won most of the votes cast, but he has won the most votes. I got accused of being pedantic for a joking exchange, but you're being serious. Btw this isn't the first time you've been accused of being pedantic. and yet again in this thread. The original post said "Most people vote for Trump". It wasnt "Trump received the most votes" or "Trump won the most states". Once again, most people DID NOT VOTE for Trump You cant just redefine words to meet your perception OK. Maybe i can dumb this down for you... Which of these two statements is correct: A....Most people voted for Trump B....Most people did not vote for Trump It can only be one or the other but before you answer, here is some reference material for you Popular Vote Totals: Trump................7,863,052' Cruz...................5,782,142 Rubio.................3,470,384 Kasich................2,822,210 Take all the time you need... Ok, maybe I can dumb this down for you. I'm not real hopeful, since you apparently didn't read anything I wrote, but here goes: only a FUCKING IDIOT would think someone could win the majority of votes in a large field like the Republicans had this year. Take all the time you need. I read it as A. Most people voted for Trump B. Most people voted against Cruz yep, you cant tell which candidate those folks would vote for, also someone needs a time out. This site is really starting to go to shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 11:14:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This site is really starting to go to shit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 11:21:59 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You admitted you lied. I pointed out how funny it was that someone who admitted they lie keeps calling someone else a liar. Oh, and generally sycophants don't say things about the person they support like "I'm not a a fan of them" and "he's far from my ideal candidate." But hey, you've already admitted that you tell lies so I'm sure you won't let that get in your way.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty sad that you lie so much you can't even keep track of them. Unfortunately for you your post was quoted before you could edit it out. Pretty sad you're so accustomed to lying, that you project that on others who don't. Want to quote me where I met your own standard for the definition of a "cruz zealot" in your own thread, liar? Haha, I love it. What? No more claims that you didn't admit to lying? Kind of hard when the proof that you did gets posted, liar.
more lies from a trump sycophant. typical are you proud of yourself? You admitted you lied. I pointed out how funny it was that someone who admitted they lie keeps calling someone else a liar. Oh, and generally sycophants don't say things about the person they support like "I'm not a a fan of them" and "he's far from my ideal candidate." But hey, you've already admitted that you tell lies so I'm sure you won't let that get in your way. More lies from somebody who shows himself to be very comfortable with deceit, liar. regardless, you admitted you're supporting trump which puts a smear thread without any substance you started in context regardless of how you spin it. your posts-like your thread-are based upon lies, liar. You fool no one except the gullible, liar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 11:24:38 AM EDT
[#16]
The creepy Canadian will not be the nominee.
Time for him to move on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 11:58:29 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More lies from somebody who shows himself to be very comfortable with deceit, liar. regardless, you admitted you're supporting trump which puts a smear thread without any substance you started in context regardless of how you spin it. your posts-like your thread-are based upon lies, liar. You fool no one except the gullible, liar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Haha, I love it. What? No more claims that you didn't admit to lying? Kind of hard when the proof that you did gets posted, liar.
more lies from a trump sycophant. typical are you proud of yourself? You admitted you lied. I pointed out how funny it was that someone who admitted they lie keeps calling someone else a liar. Oh, and generally sycophants don't say things about the person they support like "I'm not a a fan of them" and "he's far from my ideal candidate." But hey, you've already admitted that you tell lies so I'm sure you won't let that get in your way. More lies from somebody who shows himself to be very comfortable with deceit, liar. regardless, you admitted you're supporting trump which puts a smear thread without any substance you started in context regardless of how you spin it. your posts-like your thread-are based upon lies, liar. You fool no one except the gullible, liar. I have never seen so much projection from one person in my life. It's like you believe the fact that you admitted to lying earlier in this thread will be washed away if you baselessly call someone else a liar enough times. The proof that you did is found in the link at the top of the quote tree in your post. Your post in which you admitted it was quoted, so sorry, you can't go back and edit it to hide your shame, admitted liar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 12:20:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have never seen so much projection from one person in my life. It's like you believe the fact that you admitted to lying earlier in this thread will be washed away if you baselessly call someone else a liar enough times. The proof that you did is found in the link at the top of the quote tree in your post. Your post in which you admitted it was quoted, so sorry, you can't go back and edit it to hide your shame, admitted liar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Haha, I love it. What? No more claims that you didn't admit to lying? Kind of hard when the proof that you did gets posted, liar.
more lies from a trump sycophant. typical are you proud of yourself? You admitted you lied. I pointed out how funny it was that someone who admitted they lie keeps calling someone else a liar. Oh, and generally sycophants don't say things about the person they support like "I'm not a a fan of them" and "he's far from my ideal candidate." But hey, you've already admitted that you tell lies so I'm sure you won't let that get in your way. More lies from somebody who shows himself to be very comfortable with deceit, liar. regardless, you admitted you're supporting trump which puts a smear thread without any substance you started in context regardless of how you spin it. your posts-like your thread-are based upon lies, liar. You fool no one except the gullible, liar. I have never seen so much projection from one person in my life. It's like you believe the fact that you admitted to lying earlier in this thread will be washed away if you baselessly call someone else a liar enough times. The proof that you did is found in the link at the top of the quote tree in your post. Your post in which you admitted it was quoted, so sorry, you can't go back and edit it to hide your shame, admitted liar. I'm kinda flattered that I could expose a trump supporter a new word: "projection". it's obvious, however, you don't know what the word means. at least you trump supporters are consistent in your zest to be "low information" in your daily lives I never admitted to lying either, liar. You see, the difference between you and me is that there was never any intent to deliberately deceive you or anyone else when I misspoke about you posting a link to the NE story (not that posting a sensationalist smear / hit job headlines from the NE is any better, or absolves you of promoting a smear campaign against the most 2A GOP candidate we've seen run for president since Pat Buchanan). I admitted to being technically incorrect, which I was, liar. Was I being intentionally deceitful, liar? No. I'm not like you, liar. you still haven't provided the quote where I demanded you change the title of your op, thus meeting your own criteria for what constitutes a "cruz zealot", liar. I'm waiting, liar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 12:30:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm kinda flattered that I could expose a trump supporter a new word: "projection". it's obvious, however, you don't know what the word means. at least you trump supporters are consistent in your zest to be "low information" in your daily lives I never admitted to lying either, liar. You see, the difference between you and me is that there was never any intent to deliberately deceive you or anyone else when I misspoke about you posting a link to the NE story (not that posting a sensationalist smear / hit job headlines from the NE is any better, or absolves you of promoting a smear campaign against the most 2A GOP candidate we've seen run for president since Pat Buchanan). I admitted to being technically incorrect, which I was, liar. Was I being intentionally deceitful, liar? No. I'm not like you, liar. you still haven't provided the quote where I demanded you change the title of your op, thus meeting your own criteria for what constitutes a "cruz zealot", liar. I'm waiting, liar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
more lies from a trump sycophant. typical are you proud of yourself? You admitted you lied. I pointed out how funny it was that someone who admitted they lie keeps calling someone else a liar. Oh, and generally sycophants don't say things about the person they support like "I'm not a a fan of them" and "he's far from my ideal candidate." But hey, you've already admitted that you tell lies so I'm sure you won't let that get in your way. More lies from somebody who shows himself to be very comfortable with deceit, liar. regardless, you admitted you're supporting trump which puts a smear thread without any substance you started in context regardless of how you spin it. your posts-like your thread-are based upon lies, liar. You fool no one except the gullible, liar. I have never seen so much projection from one person in my life. It's like you believe the fact that you admitted to lying earlier in this thread will be washed away if you baselessly call someone else a liar enough times. The proof that you did is found in the link at the top of the quote tree in your post. Your post in which you admitted it was quoted, so sorry, you can't go back and edit it to hide your shame, admitted liar. I'm kinda flattered that I could expose a trump supporter a new word: "projection". it's obvious, however, you don't know what the word means. at least you trump supporters are consistent in your zest to be "low information" in your daily lives I never admitted to lying either, liar. You see, the difference between you and me is that there was never any intent to deliberately deceive you or anyone else when I misspoke about you posting a link to the NE story (not that posting a sensationalist smear / hit job headlines from the NE is any better, or absolves you of promoting a smear campaign against the most 2A GOP candidate we've seen run for president since Pat Buchanan). I admitted to being technically incorrect, which I was, liar. Was I being intentionally deceitful, liar? No. I'm not like you, liar. you still haven't provided the quote where I demanded you change the title of your op, thus meeting your own criteria for what constitutes a "cruz zealot", liar. I'm waiting, liar. You can offer up all the baseless accusations you want, but the fact of the matter is you, by your own admission, are a liar. The proof was already posted, admitted liar. You’re like a guy who admits to cheating on his wife and thinks if he keeps baselessly calling others cheaters that somehow cancels it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 12:40:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, that would make things a bit interesting. Not sure how that will shake out yet, I think an indictment is coming but it depends on when. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hypothetically, assuming convention shenanigans and the installation of an establishment candidate, he'd have a good shot at a solid second place finish in the general on an independent run. It would wind up being a contest between his ego and his financial sense. It would be a bad business decision. I agree. An indictment might shift the calculus a bit. Yeah, that would make things a bit interesting. Not sure how that will shake out yet, I think an indictment is coming but it depends on when. That can mean a few different things. Loretta Lynch had to be in on giving the guy immunity, and that she did not stone wall this. Also she worked closely with FBI Director Comey in the past before he was head of the FBI and she was not Attorney General, they were both Federal prosecutors |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 12:44:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can offer up all the baseless accusations you want, but the fact of the matter is you, by your own admission, are a liar. The proof was already posted, admitted liar. You’re like a guy who admits to cheating on his wife and thinks if he keeps baselessly calling others cheaters that somehow cancels it out. Nothing baseless about it, liar. Keep digging that hole, liar. You used "cruze zealot" as a pejorative to marginalize those that don't jump aboard with a stupid thread you posted designed to smear a conservative pro-2A candidate running for president, liar. You then insist that I met the definition of what you consider a "cruz zealot" because, according to you, I demanded you change the title of your hit-piece thread, which was an absolute lie, liar. When called upon to back up your claim with a quote, you refused, liar. It is what it is. You are a dishonest, deceitful supporter of a known liberal from NY who has enthusiastically praised the likes of Obama and his BFFs Bill and Hillary-all of which are sworn enemies of the 2A. What are you even doing here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 1:11:18 PM EDT
[#22]
This Thread is fucking hilarious! Its 104 pages of nothing but purse swinging.
Before I forget: its too bad cruz is a liar, but to go and cheat on his wife too?! Wow. That takes boogers. Oh well, Trump 2016. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 3:15:55 PM EDT
[#23]
lol with 5 new pages a day you'd assume there would be something new
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 3:27:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How's that evidence coming along? No photoshops, no NE article, no supposed madam whose lawyer supposedly has phone records and in case he is whacked, no shenanigans. 100% concrete undeniable proof.. birddogz is on the case, showing us he's still capable of embedding images in posts. You go birddogz! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 3:29:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol with 5 new pages a day you'd assume there would be something new It should be coming soon. NE or Madam spreadsheet will come out. Personally I just want to see if I'm right or not. Cruz is scaming his donors. He knows he can't win, yet he keep asking for money. If the sex scandal is true his donors should hang him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 3:30:39 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This Thread is fucking hilarious! Its 104 pages of nothing but purse swinging. Before I forget: its too bad cruz is a liar, but to go and cheat on his wife too?! Wow. That takes boogers. Oh well, Trump 2016. 
Now THAT is hilarious. Disgusting, but funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 3:41:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
birddogz is on the case, showing us he's still capable of embedding images in posts. You go birddogz! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How's that evidence coming along? No photoshops, no NE article, no supposed madam whose lawyer supposedly has phone records and in case he is whacked, no shenanigans. 100% concrete undeniable proof.. birddogz is on the case, showing us he's still capable of embedding images in posts. You go birddogz! I think we should all give him a round of applause, he's accomplished so much with so little! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 3:44:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol with 5 new pages a day you'd assume there would be something new This been posted? lame cherry |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 3:52:06 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The GOPe surrogates are letting you think that now but the truth is either trump will win or you will see Kasich/Rubio as the ticket. Cruz is being used but he is it part of the plan. Trump is the only one strong enough to win against the will of the party. Cruz has zero chance of that kind of upswell, Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I will vote for Trump if he wins the nomination. What you guys do not understand (or want to admit )is that if trump does not win it out right Cruz hS a very good chance at the second vote. I think both sides agree on three things. Fuck obama Fuck hillary Fuck anyone except Trump and Cruz who thinks they will steal this nomination at the convention. The GOPe surrogates are letting you think that now but the truth is either trump will win or you will see Kasich/Rubio as the ticket. Cruz is being used but he is it part of the plan. Trump is the only one strong enough to win against the will of the party. Cruz has zero chance of that kind of upswell, Vote for who ever you want. I hate the GOP e too and that's why I like CRUZ. He will never fold on guns. Cruz has a plan and that is one reason why he is not loved in Washington. He has said what he means and stood by it. Once again I will vote for Trump if it comes to it but Cruz is the only true conservative in the race and that is what I want. If I am wrong about this I will only lose 4 years, if you are wrong we lose the supreme court for 30 years and we lose the second amendment on top of it all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 4:57:51 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lol with 5 new pages a day you'd assume there would be something new This been posted? lame cherry Interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 5:23:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lol with 5 new pages a day you'd assume there would be something new This been posted? lame cherry Interesting. The cover photo was interesting. Everything else looked to be written by a third-grader. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 5:35:53 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The cover photo was interesting. Everything else looked to be written by a third-grader. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lol with 5 new pages a day you'd assume there would be something new This been posted? lame cherry Interesting. The cover photo was interesting. Everything else looked to be written by a third-grader. That's insulting to third graders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 5:38:57 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 5:39:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The cover photo was interesting. Everything else looked to be written by a third-grader. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: lol with 5 new pages a day you'd assume there would be something new This been posted? lame cherry Interesting. The cover photo was interesting. Everything else looked to be written by a third-grader. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 6:04:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lol with 5 new pages a day you'd assume there would be something new This been posted? lame cherry That is a double whammy post...... Cruz implosion -and- Kasich "fabulous" implosion (link at the bottom of your lame cherry link) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 6:23:40 PM EDT
[#36]
That lame cherry site makes Infowars articles seem well researched.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 6:25:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lol with 5 new pages a day you'd assume there would be something new This been posted? lame cherry Interesting. That the guy wrote an entire fan fiction piece digging into the potential backstory of his own conjecture based on a claim made by some other wackjob? Or that the above is somehow legitimate in any way? Shit, there is more information in trumps tweets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 9:27:19 PM EDT
[#38]
Wonder how much if this is fiction?
Based on Current Situation=> Ted Cruz Will Be Knocked Out of Race By April 26th |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 9:29:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wonder how much if this is fiction? Based on Current Situation=> Ted Cruz Will Be Knocked Out of Race By April 26th Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wonder how much if this is fiction? Based on Current Situation=> Ted Cruz Will Be Knocked Out of Race By April 26th Overall based on the numbers, because it is highly unlikely East Coast Republicans will vote for a Canadian- born Texan for President over a New York billionaire, April will be Cruz’s last hurrah. But on the bright side Ted, you will always be welcomed back home in Canada. We can already tell the author is delusional based on this. 
Polls seem to be changing rapidly, and not in Trump's favor. At any rate, dropping out just because the Convention would be contested makes no sense unless you're a Trump supporter who wants to see the primary handed to him on a silver(well it's Trump so Gold Plated) platter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 9:34:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing baseless about it, liar. Keep digging that hole, liar. You used "cruze zealot" as a pejorative to marginalize those that don't jump aboard with a stupid thread you posted designed to smear a conservative pro-2A candidate running for president, liar. You then insist that I met the definition of what you consider a "cruz zealot" because, according to you, I demanded you change the title of your hit-piece thread, which was an absolute lie, liar. When called upon to back up your claim with a quote, you refused, liar. It is what it is. You are a dishonest, deceitful supporter of a known liberal from NY who has enthusiastically praised the likes of Obama and his BFFs Bill and Hillary-all of which are sworn enemies of the 2A. What are you even doing here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You can offer up all the baseless accusations you want, but the fact of the matter is you, by your own admission, are a liar. The proof was already posted, admitted liar. You’re like a guy who admits to cheating on his wife and thinks if he keeps baselessly calling others cheaters that somehow cancels it out. Nothing baseless about it, liar. Keep digging that hole, liar. You used "cruze zealot" as a pejorative to marginalize those that don't jump aboard with a stupid thread you posted designed to smear a conservative pro-2A candidate running for president, liar. You then insist that I met the definition of what you consider a "cruz zealot" because, according to you, I demanded you change the title of your hit-piece thread, which was an absolute lie, liar. When called upon to back up your claim with a quote, you refused, liar. It is what it is. You are a dishonest, deceitful supporter of a known liberal from NY who has enthusiastically praised the likes of Obama and his BFFs Bill and Hillary-all of which are sworn enemies of the 2A. What are you even doing here? Proof you're an admitted liar was posted in a link provided. You have no proof I lied. Just baseless accusations that you somehow think if you make enough of will wash away the fact that you're an admitted liar. Sorry, it doesn't. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 9:45:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wonder how much if this is fiction? Based on Current Situation=> Ted Cruz Will Be Knocked Out of Race By April 26th The math is accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 9:51:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The math is accurate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wonder how much if this is fiction? Based on Current Situation=> Ted Cruz Will Be Knocked Out of Race By April 26th The math is accurate. That math is irrelevant. The delegates aren't counted until the Convention, and then only in accordance with the rules that have yet to be adopted. It ain't over till it's over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 9:51:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The math is accurate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wonder how much if this is fiction? The math is accurate. but doesn't matter Cruz isn't trying for 1237, he's working to get enough to deny trump 1237 and get a contested convention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 9:54:57 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That math is irrelevant. The delegates aren't counted until the Convention, and then only in accordance with the rules that have yet to be adopted. It ain't over till it's over. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wonder how much if this is fiction? Based on Current Situation=> Ted Cruz Will Be Knocked Out of Race By April 26th The math is accurate. That math is irrelevant. The delegates aren't counted until the Convention, and then only in accordance with the rules that have yet to be adopted. It ain't over till it's over. All depends. You're not going to get your messiah no matter what happens - his only purpose now is to allow the GOP to ensure they lose the election and put Hillary in office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 9:56:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but doesn't matter Cruz isn't trying for 1237, he's working to get enough to deny trump 1237 and get a contested convention. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wonder how much if this is fiction? The math is accurate. but doesn't matter Cruz isn't trying for 1237, he's working to get enough to deny trump 1237 and get a contested convention. I know. But who is going to fund him once he's eliminated? I guess it depends on how committed the GOP is to putting Hillary in office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:01:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wonder how much if this is fiction? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:04:23 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but doesn't matter Cruz isn't trying for 1237, he's working to get enough to deny trump 1237 and get a contested convention. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The math is accurate. but doesn't matter Cruz isn't trying for 1237, he's working to get enough to deny trump 1237 and get a contested convention. I just don't see how Cruz pulls it off. He needs to get 86% of the remaining delegates to get to 1237 and that's not happening and I seriously doubt the GOPe is going to pick him in a contested conviction. I think they'll most likely end up going with someone like Kasich, Ryan, or Romney. Someone earlier said the GOPe is basically strapping Cruz with a suicide vest and sending him to Trump. That's how I see it. Use him to try and get rid of Trump and then dump him when you don't need him anymore. It reminds me of the Joker quote in 'The Dark Knight': Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:10:53 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Proof you're an admitted liar was posted in a link provided. You have no proof I lied. Just baseless accusations that you somehow think if you make enough of will wash away the fact that you're an admitted liar. Sorry, it doesn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can offer up all the baseless accusations you want, but the fact of the matter is you, by your own admission, are a liar. The proof was already posted, admitted liar. You’re like a guy who admits to cheating on his wife and thinks if he keeps baselessly calling others cheaters that somehow cancels it out. Nothing baseless about it, liar. Keep digging that hole, liar. You used "cruze zealot" as a pejorative to marginalize those that don't jump aboard with a stupid thread you posted designed to smear a conservative pro-2A candidate running for president, liar. You then insist that I met the definition of what you consider a "cruz zealot" because, according to you, I demanded you change the title of your hit-piece thread, which was an absolute lie, liar. When called upon to back up your claim with a quote, you refused, liar. It is what it is. You are a dishonest, deceitful supporter of a known liberal from NY who has enthusiastically praised the likes of Obama and his BFFs Bill and Hillary-all of which are sworn enemies of the 2A. What are you even doing here? Proof you're an admitted liar was posted in a link provided. You have no proof I lied. Just baseless accusations that you somehow think if you make enough of will wash away the fact that you're an admitted liar. Sorry, it doesn't. Whatever you say, liar. *Deny everything, liar *Admit nothing, liar *Make counter-accusations, liar
Most of us laugh at it as a standing joke, but you've embraced a standing joke as if it's a creed to live by. 
I'm still waiting for you to point out where I met your definition of a "cruz zealot", liar. You never will, because you lack character. Liar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:15:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just don't see how Cruz pulls it off. He needs to get 86% of the remaining delegates to get to 1237 and that's not happening and I seriously doubt the GOPe is going to pick him in a contested conviction. I think they'll most likely end up going with someone like Kasich, Ryan, or Romney. Someone earlier said the GOPe is basically strapping Cruz with a suicide vest and sending him to Trump. That's how I see it. Use him to try and get rid of Trump and then dump him when you don't need him anymore. It reminds me of the Joker quote in 'The Dark Knight': Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The math is accurate. but doesn't matter Cruz isn't trying for 1237, he's working to get enough to deny trump 1237 and get a contested convention. I just don't see how Cruz pulls it off. He needs to get 86% of the remaining delegates to get to 1237 and that's not happening and I seriously doubt the GOPe is going to pick him in a contested conviction. I think they'll most likely end up going with someone like Kasich, Ryan, or Romney. Someone earlier said the GOPe is basically strapping Cruz with a suicide vest and sending him to Trump. That's how I see it. Use him to try and get rid of Trump and then dump him when you don't need him anymore. It reminds me of the Joker quote in 'The Dark Knight': Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! Cruz is at least as smart as the people in GD. If we're aware of it, he's aware of it. He either has an agreement, or he thinks defeating Trump is worth getting bent over by the GOPe. We'll see in a few months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2016 10:20:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whatever you say, liar. *Deny everything, liar *Admit nothing, liar *Make counter-accusations, liar
Most of us laugh at it as a standing joke, but you've embraced a standing joke as if it's a creed to live by.
I'm still waiting for you to point out where I met your definition of a "cruz zealot", liar. You never will, because you lack character. Liar. Proof you're an admitted liar was posted in a link provided. You have no proof I lied. Just baseless accusations that you somehow think if you make enough of will wash away the fact that you're an admitted liar. Sorry, it doesn't, admitted liar. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
