BAC Called Months Ago

DigitalDave said:
Damn, I don't know what happened. MySpace hits, online polls, straw polls, Ron Paul won all of them. I was clearly swayed into believing them all and thinking "Ron Paul is obviously our next president". I didn't buy the land line argument, but i did buy the 'voters will turn out argument'. I though the lack of enthusiasm for other candidates compared to that of Paul's would bring him a better percentage. Like a whole 35% and he woul win. Well, three states are down, 47 to go! Ron Paul will win those ones!
Click to expand...

At least an honest response with integrity.
 
Watermark said:
Enough evidence finally mounts? There has been NO new "evidence" for the past 10 years. It's been out in the open. You parading around like it's something new is what's bullshit.
Click to expand...

It's new to the dummies who didn't get it the first time.

Sorta like Saddam and WMD.
 
Watermark said:
Yep this is exactly like the WMD - much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

No Ron Paul was much ado about nothing .. which I have said.

This is like Saddam and WMD because when people with brains said that crap wasn't true .. those without them claimed otherwise. THEN when the truth became undeniable, the brainless claimed they knew that all along.
 
For those who can't stay on the topic of Paul without trying to find fault in something, anything else .. I've never once suggested that Kucinich was anything other than what he is, never denied his positions or comments, even like him seeing UFO's.

Nor was I dumb enough to send him $2,000.

Big difference.
 
blackascoal said:
I know you're "the man" here and everything .. but damn, talk about disingenuous.

The argument was never that "he'd win" .. because I've said about 10,000 times that he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. My argument was that he was a racist and would only be a minor, non-substanative player in the race. If you didn't agree with that, then what the hell was your argument?

All of you Paultards now hide behind "I never said he would win", or "I was just playing", ... along with "He never said that", "Those were not his words", "Land lines". "MySpace hits", "Straw polls" and the rest of the bullshit stupidman nonsense.

Even now you don't want to talk about Paul, you'd much rather rather point a finger at Darla.
Click to expand...
My "argument" has been the joy of watching you implode over "those ronbots who think he's the next best thing to sliced bread" (dramatization)...

I have enjoyed, thoroughly, the entire time we have spent talking about it, including the time when you stated to me unequivocally, days ago even, that we actually thought he would win. The first day you got here I asked why you cared so deeply about somebody who would never get the nomination. You pretend you don't but you can't stay away... It's a freaking obsession.
 
blackascoal said:
LIAR

Post it.
Click to expand...
LOL. If I have time I'll go back through the last few days. I posted something like, "Geez man, get a sense of humor, you act as if we actually think he will win..."

Your answer, "You do actually think he will win..." with a long description of why you think we actually would. You still didn't get that the thread was humorous and fun. You are a real buzz kill because your obsession brings out the thud in your sarcasm....

And no, you weren't joking. Don't even try to pretend you even know what the definition of the word is. The closest I have seen is your post in this thread to DigitalDave.
 
I think we should just prepare a standard, generic text response to Black that goes something like:

Yeah well, your candidate believes he saw a UFO.
 
Young Libertarian said:
I think we should just prepare a standard, generic text response to Black that goes something like:

Yeah well, your candidate believes he saw a UFO.
Click to expand...
I don't care if he saw one. What freaked me is the "and felt direction in his heart from the UFO" part that is more than frightening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top