Liberal Forum

Endoscopy » 20 Oct 2014 3:20 am » wrote: Brattle is at it again with the foolish rants. Using demonizing rhetoric. Either she is an Alynski disciple or is having a permanent case of PMS.

WHAT???????? are you claiming that clemscum didn't wish that a pack of wild dogs would rape misty? OR are you claiming that you also wish someone was raped by a pack of wild dogs as just punishment for the crime of disagreeing with clemscum. What is it that you are saying. You have not made yourself clear.

Endoscopy » 20 Oct 2014 3:20 am » wrote: Brattle is at it again with the foolish rants. Using demonizing rhetoric. Either she is an Alynski disciple or is having a permanent case of PMS.

Yet your post offers nothing but personal attacks.

Huey » 19 Oct 2014 10:24 am » wrote:OBama's 2014 millitary cuts:

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/05/286225875 ... itary-cuts

The President's new budget proposes cutting the Army to its lowest troop level since before World War II. Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments weighs in.

So you are unablele to show one year that he's been in office when he actually cut the number of soldiers? Thank you for admitting that.

RichClem » 20 Oct 2014 10:03 am » wrote: You mal-adjusted the gronificator, the voltage is too high and the amplitude is way off.

You claimed that I'd "reversed myself" in my definition of a Keynesian cut.

Quote where I defined it.

.

Where did the psychotic go?

To dishonest to admit he was wrong?

Cannonpointer » 21 Oct 2014 10:46 am » wrote: So you are unablele to show one year that he's been in office when he actually cut the number of soldiers? Thank you for admitting that.

I was unaware that was a requirement. Is it? Are you asking me too try, or claiming I said it? Be clear. Not interested in yet another ****.

Huey » 21 Oct 2014 10:50 am » wrote:
I was unaware that was a requirement. Is it? Are you asking me too try, or claiming I said it? Be clear. Not interested in yet another ****.

You tell me, son. You are the one who posted that he's looking to trim the military in this year's budget, which I am guessing will occur next year? I posted in the top ten thread that Obie has increased the size of our military. You were posting that he was now looking to reduce it, and i made a wild guess that your intention was not to praise him for shrinking government, as one might a republican president, but rather to criticize him no matter which way he turns.

Huey » 21 Oct 2014 10:50 am » wrote:
I was unaware that was a requirement. Is it? Are you asking me too try, or claiming I said it? Be clear. Not interested in yet another ****.

I just noticed we ARE in that thread. Any observations, general or specific, regarding the OP?

Or you just wanna take shots aboutt him currently looking allegedly at cuts, with no comment on the subject of the thread?

Cannonpointer » 21 Oct 2014 12:39 pm » wrote:
I just noticed we ARE in that thread. Any observations, general or specific, regarding the OP?

Or you just wanna take shots aboutt him currently looking allegedly at cuts, with no comment on the subject of the thread?

That is a comment on one of your points in the OP. And posting a facts without offering an opinion is not taking a shot.

Cannonpointer » 21 Oct 2014 12:33 pm » wrote:
You tell me, son. You are the one who posted that he's looking to trim the military in this year's budget, which I am guessing will occur next year? I posted in the top ten thread that Obie has increased the size of our military. You were posting that he was now looking to reduce it, and i made a wild guess that your intention was not to praise him for shrinking government, as one might a republican president, but rather to criticize him no matter which way he turns.

Huey » 19 Oct 2014 10:24 am » wrote:OBama's 2014 millitary cuts:

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/05/286225875 ... itary-cuts

The President's new budget proposes cutting the Army to its lowest troop level since before World War II. Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments weighs in.

I offered no opinion. If you have a problem with the information posted you will have to take it up with NPR. I did it this way on purpose to avoid the usual ****. If you wish to make something more of it you should ask questions instead of making wild guesses. Causes less problems. But it is problems you wish to cause, isn't it?

Huey » 21 Oct 2014 1:20 pm » wrote: I offered no opinion. If you have a problem with the information posted you will have to take it up with NPR. I did it this way on purpose to avoid the usual ****. If you wish to make something more of it you should ask questions instead of making wild guesses. Causes less problems. But it is problems you wish to cause, isn't it?

You poor little victim, posting in my thread without offering any opinion, and having me question you.

Are you gonna be okay, buddy? Do you need a waaambulance?

Huey » 21 Oct 2014 1:13 pm » wrote: That is a comment on one of your points in the OP. And posting a facts without offering an opinion is not taking a shot.

Okay, so a noncommittal response to 10% of my OP?

Groovy, man. Would you like the nickname, "Old 10%?"

Cannonpointer » 21 Oct 2014 11:13 pm » wrote:
Okay, so a noncommittal response to 10% of my OP?

Groovy, man. Would you like the nickname, "Old 10%?"

Just discussing the portion of your lengthy OP that was the topic at the time

Cannonpointer » 21 Oct 2014 11:04 pm » wrote:
You poor little victim, posting in my thread without offering any opinion, and having me question you.

Are you gonna be okay, buddy? Do you need a waaambulance?

Poor wittle canodan. Doesn't like facts that dispute his opinions.

Bump for the psychotic liar.

RichClem » 21 Oct 2014 10:50 am » wrote: .

Where did the psychotic go?

To dishonest to admit he was wrong?

RichClem » 21 Oct 2014 10:50 am » wrote: .

Where did the psychotic go?

To dishonest to admit he was wrong?

QUOTE where he claimed you reversed yourself? I will run circles around your standard troll run-around. you **** coward.

Huey » 22 Oct 2014 4:25 am » wrote:
Just discussing the portion of your lengthy OP that was the topic at the time

"Discussing," and taking no position - like a ****** - like a little, scared, ******.

I clearly own you, ***. You;re such a ****** that you want to be seen by the other queers posting in my thread, but when challenged on your *** meaning go IMMEDIATELY to, "I'M SWITZERLAND, LEAVE ME ALONE!"

You scared little ***, I have you too beaten down to even TRY me - I like it, sissy.

Keep it that way, chump.

I ain't skeered of your pink pantie ***. Jump when you feel froggy.



Fake

RichClem » 22 Oct 2014 8:37 am » wrote:Bump for the psychotic liar.

Hey, ***: If you came glory holing in here USING THE TERM and refusing to define it or agree to a definition, that's not a defense. It's an admission. You're a self-admitted punk that brings nothing, and when nailed down on his own definitions starts crying about them.

I know for a FACT that you defined it, ***. Otherwise, you were being a coward and a ******. Oh, wait. Is THAT your claim - that you ran from any definition?

What a queer. You'll get the definition we assign, you little puke. Now, shut the **** up, sissy-chatter.

Who is that drunken queer addressing?

I have never called you a *** (though I have suspicions). I simply have called you a traditional low information has been troll.

That shoe fits nice doesn't it.