GOP racists suffer setback

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel4
  • Start date Start date
So would cawacko please explain to me how what DNC posts makes him a troll, but this shit doesn't get SM grouped into the same "troll" category?

Can you do that for me cawacko?

Zap, you know I'm an addict to this board just like I was on the AOL board. I spend way too much time here and thus read way too many posts.

When DNC first got here he said anyone who oppose's Obama is a racist and then he just started copying and pasting paragraphs from Obama's website. That's troll activity. He has been engaged in zero attempted debates since he joined. That's because trolls aren't interested in that.

The difference compared to what you pointed out above is SM's post can be qualified as a flame or even a troll like post.

So the difference to me is between a full time troll, which is what DNC is (in fact I'm almost convinced its someone on the right behind DNC), and someone who flames on a post.

Would you agree with that assessment?
 
Zap, you know I'm an addict to this board just like I was on the AOL board. I spend way too much time here and thus read way too many posts.

When DNC first got here he said anyone who oppose's Obama is a racist and then he just started copying and pasting paragraphs from Obama's website. That's troll activity. He has been engaged in zero attempted debates since he joined. That's because trolls aren't interested in that.

The difference compared to what you pointed out above is SM's post can be qualified as a flame or even a troll like post.

So the difference to me is between a full time troll, which is what DNC is (in fact I'm almost convinced its someone on the right behind DNC), and someone who flames on a post.

Would you agree with that assessment?

I haven't been here long enough to determine who is and isn't a troll yet, but from his first two posts on this thread, I don't see it. DNC posted the results of a poll, like the results or not, there's nothing wrong with that.

DNC then got the standard flamebait response from mini-meme. Does that make her a troll?

He responded with some information backing his claim, people started in with the name calling and he responded likewise.

Does a snarky response make one a troll? Then just about everyone on this board has engaged in troll-like activities in the past. I got called a big cunt by AssHat when I first got here. Did I ignore him from then on out? No, I continued to read what he wrote and was surprised to find that every once in a great while he, along with SM, actually makes sense.
 
Then please point me to the correct posts showing as much.
1. Obama's not retarded because he went to, and graduated from, Harvard.
2. He hates America because he hates the Constitution, as evidenced by his attempts to usurp it.
3. He is a racist because he treats blacks different, and preferentially than whites. The latest evidence: "Cambridge cops acted stupidly".
 
1. Obama's not retarded because he went to, and graduated from, Harvard.
2. He hates America because he hates the Constitution, as evidenced by his attempts to usurp it.
3. He is a racist because he treats blacks different, and preferentially than whites. The latest evidence: "Cambridge cops acted stupidly".

1...Agreed

2...Your opinion doesn't doesn't count as "evidence".

3...The Cambridge cops...one was Caucasian, one was African American. He said they acted stupidly, so he treated both the same. No preferential treatment there.
 
1...Agreed

2...Your opinion doesn't doesn't count as "evidence".

3...The Cambridge cops...one was Caucasian, one was African American. He said they acted stupidly, so he treated both the same. No preferential treatment there.
2. Not my opinion- fact. Can you name the specific provision in the Constitution where say, national health care, is deemed to be under the authority of the Federal government? You can't, therefore anyone who supports such an Act has usurped the Constitution.
3. It has nothing to do with the race of a second Cambridge cop that happened to observe the incident and wasn't identified at all when Obama acted. The case is clearly about a black guy being arrested by a white cop, and Obama acting on his racial prejudices instead of bothering to find out the facts.
 
1...Agreed

2...Your opinion doesn't doesn't count as "evidence".

3...The Cambridge cops...one was Caucasian, one was African American. He said they acted stupidly, so he treated both the same. No preferential treatment there.

lmao....yeah, obama was talking about the black cop....thats why only the white cop was invited to the WH
 
2. Not my opinion- fact. Can you name the specific provision in the Constitution where say, national health care, is deemed to be under the authority of the Federal government? You can't, therefore anyone who supports such an Act has usurped the Constitution.
3. It has nothing to do with the race of a second Cambridge cop that happened to observe the incident and wasn't identified at all when Obama acted. The case is clearly about a black guy being arrested by a white cop, and Obama acting on his racial prejudices instead of bothering to find out the facts.

2...yeah, thanks for answering the question for me. It must be nice to be able to read another person's mind.

3...And that's why he singled out the arresting officer when he said the Cambridge police acted stupidly. Oh wait, he didn't do that, did he?

Alrightie...more excuses...keep em coming!
 
2...yeah, thanks for answering the question for me. It must be nice to be able to read another person's mind.

3...And that's why he singled out the arresting officer when he said the Cambridge police acted stupidly. Oh wait, he didn't do that, did he?

Alrightie...more excuses...keep em coming!

2. Either you can answer it or not: "Can you name the specific provision in the Constitution where say, national health care, is deemed to be under the authority of the Federal government?"

3. Again, the media had not identified the second Cambridge cop when Obama said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly".
 
Back
Top