Bowl Games

WinterBorn said:
And Clemson's defense couldn't do much of anything in the 2018 semi-final game. Bama won 24-6. Then went on to beat GA in overtime.
Click to expand...

Since Alabama average almost 40 points/game prior to the semi-final, Clemson holding them to just slightly above half of that would be doing something. It wasn't enough to win but it's hardly nothing.
 
CFM said:
Since Alabama average almost 40 points/game prior to the semi-final, Clemson holding them to just slightly above half of that would be doing something. It wasn't enough to win but it's hardly nothing.
Click to expand...

It wasn't enough. Bama won the National Championship.
 
WinterBorn said:
What you said was, "Seems you left out the part that Alabama won't get their ass kicked for the 3rd time in a row by Clemson in the game.".
Click to expand...

What I specifically mentioned was 2017 and 2019 games while stating "in the championship game". "In the game" was a reference to the championship game.

You're really slow.
 
WinterBorn said:
I believe him because he is an honest man. Oh, and you should get your facts right. I only met him after my wife died.

I would have paid money to see you call him a "faggot". lol But wait, you talked to him and asked about me, but didn't remember what he looked like a week later.
Click to expand...

Just as I said. He was there to comfort you and become your faggot buddy.

I see a lot of people only once and can't describe them either. Are you really going with that excuse for your cowardice again?
 
CFM said:
You definitely have a clue about what it means to be a coward.

Are you saying war excuses someone using cowardly tactics.
Click to expand...

I am saying war excuses casualties. And many other history scholars call him brilliant. But I am sure you know more.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am saying war excuses casualties. And many other history scholars call him brilliant. But I am sure you know more.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is that a coward used cowardly tactics and it's OK if he indiscriminately killed innocent people.

What makes them a scholar? I guessing it's because they say what you want to hear. I'm sure you'll say otherwise.
 
CFM said:
Just as I said. He was there to comfort you and become your faggot buddy.

I see a lot of people only once and can't describe them either. Are you really going with that excuse for your cowardice again?
Click to expand...

Can't even remember if they were tall, short, fat or skinny? Can't even call the conversation up in your mind and recall whether the person had blonde hair, black hair or red hair? Can't recall if he had a beard, mustache or was clean shaven? Sounds like you have some serious memory issues.
 
CFM said:
What you're saying is that a coward used cowardly tactics and it's OK if he indiscriminately killed innocent people.

What makes them a scholar? I guessing it's because they say what you want to hear. I'm sure you'll say otherwise.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone but you say he "indiscriminately killed innocent people".
 
WinterBorn said:
Can't even remember if they were tall, short, fat or skinny? Can't even call the conversation up in your mind and recall whether the person had blonde hair, black hair or red hair? Can't recall if he had a beard, mustache or was clean shaven? Sounds like you have some serious memory issues.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are going back to the "if you don't remember what I think you should remember it didn't happen" excuse.
 
CFM said:
Looks like you are going back to the "if you don't remember what I think you should remember it didn't happen" excuse.
Click to expand...

No, I simply reiterate that you have some mental/memory issues.

To not be able to give a detailed description is one thing. To have absolutely no recall concerning their appearance is another.

But we have rehashed all this. Back to the topic.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, not at all. Have you seen anyone with a degree in history, or that has studied history agree with you?
Click to expand...

Your posts say otherwise.

By Sherman's own words, he targeted innocent people in an effort to teach them a lesson. His sole purpose was to wage war on civilians, many of whom only wanted to be left alone.

He was in direct violation of something Lincoln signed and put into effect related to the respect for private property. If a military officer did this type of thing today, they'd be considered war criminals. You Liberals, when proper tactics were used against those actually fighting against the U.S. to gain information, you whined that they were being tortured.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, I simply reiterate that you have some mental/memory issues.

To not be able to give a detailed description is one thing. To have absolutely no recall concerning their appearance is another.

But we have rehashed all this. Back to the topic.
Click to expand...

No, you're setting a standard because of your cowardice and expecting me to accept it.

You're asking for a detailed description.

We have rehashed it. You weren't there, I did what you said, and you're mad about it. Go let your faggot buddy console you.
 
CFM said:
Your posts say otherwise.

By Sherman's own words, he targeted innocent people in an effort to teach them a lesson. His sole purpose was to wage war on civilians, many of whom only wanted to be left alone.

He was in direct violation of something Lincoln signed and put into effect related to the respect for private property. If a military officer did this type of thing today, they'd be considered war criminals. You Liberals, when proper tactics were used against those actually fighting against the U.S. to gain information, you whined that they were being tortured.
Click to expand...

Did you have issues with the bombing of Japanese and German cities in WW2?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top