Stupidest viral claims of 2012

[rivergator]

From Factcheck. I'm pretty sure we've seen them all on Too Hot. most far more than once.

Dueling graphics on the debt both overstated and understated President Obama’s contribution to the debt.

No, Obama didn’t give Alaskan islands to Russia, and his early records weren’t “sealed.”

Over-the-top “death panel” claims about the Affordable Care Act included purely invented stories about elderly Americans being denied dialysis or brain surgery.

Vote-rigging conspiracies claimed that Tagg Romney owned voting machines in Ohio (he doesn’t) and that uncounted military ballots swung the election for Obama (from a “faux news” site).

link (http://factcheck.org/2012/12/viral-spiral-2012/)

[ChartsandGrafs]

Did they bother to fact check the number of kids Obama has murdered with his drones?

[gatorev12]

Did they bother to fact check the number of kids Obama has murdered with his drones?

Probably not before you failed to look up the definition of "murder."

[ChartsandGrafs]

Probably not before you failed to look up the definition of "murder."

Right, I forgot that it's not murder if the government does the killing. Then it's just "collateral damage".

LULZ!

[gatorev12]

Right, I forgot that it's not murder if the government does the killing. Then it's just "collateral damage".

LULZ!

I see you're more focused on internetz slang than actually trying to read up on what you profess to know about. Which is about what I expected.

[rivergator]

Did they bother to fact check the number of kids Obama has murdered with his drones?

Was that a viral falsehood this past year?

[ChartsandGrafs]

I see you're more focused on internetz slang than actually trying to read up on what you profess to know about. Which is about what I expected.

Requesting permission to land, government apologist, requesting permission to land.

https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/42903062/miscellaneous_119.gif

[ChartsandGrafs]

Was that a viral falsehood this past year?

Why are you asking me? I thought Factcheck had all the answers.

Is that not so?

[gatorev12]

Requesting permission to land, government apologist, requesting permission to land.


I see you're as "back" as the full fury of f$u fans/alums/trailer trash in August, 2011--which tells me you figured out a way to repay your power bill since I'm sure posting crackpot conspiracy theories online 24-7 is probably not very conducive to having a job/career.

Since you're "fail" at actually understanding what entails "murder" and what does not--I'll even be kind and only post a one-word definition for you to look up: "intent."

[rivergator]

Why are you asking me? I thought Factcheck had all the answers.

Is that not so?

No, I don't believe it fact checks everything that ever occurs to anyone anywhere. This particular piece was about false rumors that went viral this year.
It's really not hard to understand.

[JerseyGator01]

Utrasound = rape.

Game. set. match.

This claim was the explosion of the idea from years earlier that the ultrasound machine is a right-wing trap. The Dems kept that one in their back pocket for an election year.

[G8trGr8t]

Do you have to pay cap gains tax on home sales?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Since you're "fail" at actually understanding what entails "murder" and what does not--I'll even be kind and only post a one-word definition for you to look up: "intent."

Yes, Obama intends to drone bomb targets where he knows civilians who are present, including women and small children, will be maimed and killed. That's his intent, to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's called "murder".

Thanks, and come again.

[G8trGr8t]

Where can I review 0's college aid applications?

[G8trGr8t]

Yes, Obama intends to drone bomb targets where he knows civilians are present and will get maimed and killed. That's called "murder".

Thanks, and come again.

So any enemy combatants should be safe as long as they have their wife with them?

[ChartsandGrafs]

So any enemy combatants should be safe as long as they have their wife with them?

Why, are you making an argument for indiscriminate killing?

Fantastic. Welcome to the world of international terrorism. Orientation starts shortly. How does it feel to be no better than the people you are fighting?

Maybe you can get a job in Obama's administration, seeing as how you share his murderous views?

[gatorev12]

Yes, Obama intends to drone bomb targets where he knows civilians who are present, including women and small children, will be maimed and killed. That's his intent, to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's called "murder".

Thanks, and come again.

Looks like you're already staking your claim to 2013's most fictitious post and we're only a week in.

Suffice it to say, not a single thing you posted here can be substantiated by anything other than you making things up. Which comes pretty close to the definition of "fabrication." If civilians are known to be present before ANY military operation (be it a drone strike, a regular bomb run, etc), then it's called off. Period and end of story. Careers have been ended when mistakes are made on this.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Looks like you're already staking your claim to 2013's most fictitious post and we're only a week in.

Suffice it to say, not a single thing you posted here can be substantiated by anything other than you making things up. Which comes pretty close to the definition of "fabrication." If civilians are known to be present before ANY military operation (be it a drone strike, a regular bomb run, etc), then it's called off. Period and end of story. Careers have been ended when mistakes are made on this.

LOL, sure, in your vivid imagination, but in the real world, no. Civilians are dying in drone bombings all the time. The U.S. government knows this. They know their attacks aren't precision enough to avoid collateral damage. The administration simply doesn't care.

Period and end of story.

[rivergator]

Where can I review 0's college aid applications?

seriously, again?

[gatorev12]

LOL, sure, in your vivid imagination, but in the real world, no. Civilians are dying in drone bombings all the time. The U.S. government knows this. They know their attacks aren't precision enough to avoid collateral damage. The administration simply doesn't care.

Period and end of story.

Not quite...you've made the allegation in multiple threads now that Obama/the US "murders" innocent civilians--and even went so far as to make the analogy that we *were* intentionally targeting them to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Which, unless you can prove a SINGLE case of an American drone strike being done to deliberately kill civilians along with the intended target, is a ridiculous and asinine assertion--but I'm guessing you won't care.

And fyi: no, I'm not denying that civilians occasionally do get killed. There's a difference when they get killed accidentally when we don't know they're there--and between intentional murder.

Also fyi: I'm sure you recognize that many terrorists intentionally hole themselves up with civilians and/or conduct operational planning meetings in civilian areas to deliberately use them as human shields, right? Any comment on that?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Not quite...you've made the allegation in multiple threads now that Obama/the US "murders" innocent civilians--and even went so far as to make the analogy that we *were* intentionally targeting them to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Which, unless you can prove a SINGLE case of an American drone strike being done to deliberately kill civilians along with the intended target, is a ridiculous and asinine assertion--but I'm guessing you won't care.

No, unlike you, I don't care much for excusing murder.

Ordering imprecise drone strikes with devastating ordinance where you know innocent civilians are or are likely to be present is murder. You'd have an argument if only one or two of these drone strikes resulted in "collateral damage", but that's not the case.

And fyi: no, I'm not denying that civilians occasionally do get killed. There's a difference when they get killed accidentally when we don't know they're there--and between intentional murder.

Of course you think it's all "accidental". You have no more evidence for that claim than I do mine, though.

Also fyi: I'm sure you recognize that many terrorists intentionally hole themselves up with civilians and/or conduct operational planning meetings in civilian areas to deliberately use them as human shields, right? Any comment on that?

Oh, you mean the same way we put daycare centers at the bottom of federal buildings? You mean the same way many of our military bases are either in or right next to towns?

Wow, looks like those "terrorists" over there have learned a thing or two from the way we do things! Whodathunkit?!

[gatorev12]

[QUOTE=ChartsandGrafs;6297867]No, unlike you, I don't care much for excusing murder.


Unlike you, I know the definition of murder and don't troll the internet trying to make up BS to support my worldview.

Ordering imprecise drone strikes with devastating ordinance where you know innocent civilians are or are likely to be present is murder. You'd have an argument if only one or two of these drone strikes resulted in "collateral damage", but that's not the case.


Not exactly. Again, you're not answering the questions (shocking) and changing things around. YOU alleged (wrongly) that the US intentionally targets civilians in drone strikes without being able to point to a single incident to substantiate your claim. That's either laughably inaccurate, abject laziness, or completely obvious lying. Put up or shut up: name one incident to substantiate your claims or else you were "mistaken" in your blanket statements.


Of course you think it's all "accidental". You have no more evidence for that claim than I do mine, though.


Well, no, actually, I do. Official US policy is NOT to target areas where there's known to be civilians present. If we screw up, investigations are undertaken and compensation is made to the families (regardless if the families involved were intentionally placed there or not).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/world/asia/22airstrikes.html?_r=0

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/06/11/us-commander-civilian-air-strike-pact-doesnt-ban-their-use

The agreement senior NATO commanders inked recently with Afghan leaders "doesn't change the R.O.E.," says Army Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, International Security Assistance Force Joint Command chief and deputy commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, referring to troops' rules of engagement.

U.S. and NATO forces will first use "other means and methods to engage the enemy." If those tactics are all used without success, ground commanders can then request "air-delivered munitions" be dropped on buildings located in civilian areas, Scaparrotti told reporters in Washington via video conference,


There you have it. Airstrikes are a last-resort option--and are supposed to be used only when the target is confirmed to have no civilians present.

Obviously, mistakes can and do happen--but there is absolutely NOTHING to substantiate your assertion that there's intentional targeting going on. Only your lies.

Oh, you mean the same way we put daycare centers at the bottom of federal buildings? You mean the same way many of our military bases are either in or right next to towns?


More misdirection. Following Oklahoma City (a domestic terrorist that had nothing to do with international terrorism), daycare centers were moved out of federal buildings, contrary to your implication here. I challenge you to name ONE foreign terrorist incident that killed American children in a federal building after that. Maybe 9/11 (in which thousands died), but aside from that, you have nothing.

Bringing up military bases is more laughably inaccurate lying. Unless a foreign entity is using a nuclear bomb, there is absolutely no way that targeting an American military base harms any of the towns or cities in close proximity. None. Try taking a peak at ANY domestic American base and see if it's remotely possible for a bomb to take out civilian areas nearby. Simply cannot happen following the restrictions put in place after 9/11.

Wow, looks like those "terrorists" over there have learned a thing or two from the way we do things! Whodathunkit?!


Actually, no. They haven't...they deliberately place themselves in civilian areas and use human shields to dare their enemies to strike at them. The only people who actually sympathize with such scum are bleeding heart types or worthless naive idiots.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Unlike you, I know the definition of murder and don't troll the internet trying to make up BS to support my worldview.

No, apparently you don't know the definition of murder. And I certainly don't need to make anything up. The government does it for me. They're the ones bombing and murdering innocent people. If you want to worship them for it, be my guest.

Not exactly. Again, you're not answering the questions (shocking) and changing things around. YOU alleged (wrongly) that the US intentionally targets civilians in drone strikes without being able to point to a single incident to substantiate your claim. That's either laughably inaccurate, abject laziness, or completely obvious lying. Put up or shut up: name one incident to substantiate your claims or else you were "mistaken" in your blanket statements.

LOL, of course the U.S. government targets civilians. If they weren't targeting civilians, they wouldn't have killed so many hundreds of civilians. They kill civilians because they believe its OK to create "collateral damage" in war. It's still murder, though. Doesn't matter how much you whine and complain about it.

Murder. Murder. Murder.

Well, no, actually, I do.

No you don't.

Official US policy is NOT to target areas where there's known to be civilians present.

LOL, that's just what they tell you. "Official policy" gives them plausible deniability. That way, if they hit a civilian target, they can always say it was an "accident". After all, the "official policy" says so. They don't target civilian targets, so it MUST have been an accident.

Don't you know anything?

If we screw up, investigations are undertaken and compensation is made to the families (regardless if the families involved were intentionally placed there or not).

More nonsense. Yes, the government "investigates" itself, kind of the same way the fox is left in charge of looking after the chicken coop. And any money they pay is not even their money, it was stolen from the taxpayers!

Who are you trying to kid with this propaganda?

There you have it. Airstrikes are a last-resort option--and are supposed to be used only when the target is confirmed to have no civilians present.

There I have what? There's nothing in your links to support your case. You've basically got some government employees saying they are going to "limit" how many civilians they murder.

LOL, is that the best you've got?

Obviously, mistakes can and do happen--but there is absolutely NOTHING to substantiate your assertion that there's intentional targeting going on. Only your lies.

False. The proof is in the pudding. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in countless strikes.

Now, either the government is completely incompetent, or they are doing it on purpose. You pick.

More misdirection. Following Oklahoma City (a domestic terrorist that had nothing to do with international terrorism), daycare centers were moved out of federal buildings, contrary to your implication here. I challenge you to name ONE foreign terrorist incident that killed American children in a federal building after that. Maybe 9/11 (in which thousands died), but aside from that, you have nothing.

It doesn't change the fact that it happened, no matter how much you stomp your feet. And the only reason the government changed the policy is because public sentiment demanded it.

Bringing up military bases is more laughably inaccurate lying. Unless a foreign entity is using a nuclear bomb, there is absolutely no way that targeting an American military base harms any of the towns or cities in close proximity. None. Try taking a peak at ANY domestic American base and see if it's remotely possible for a bomb to take out civilian areas nearby. Simply cannot happen following the restrictions put in place after 9/11.

Irrelevant, military bases use civilian-populated areas as "human shields" the same way terrorists do.

Actually, no. They haven't...they deliberately place themselves in civilian areas and use human shields to dare their enemies to strike at them. The only people who actually sympathize with such scum are bleeding heart types or worthless naive idiots.

Yep, sounds just like that federal building in Oklahoma City and all of our military and naval bases inside of towns and cities. You've really got to give those terrorists credit for seeing how we do things and copying us. We're the unchallenged kings of using human shields.

Don't be so distraught about it, man. You'll be OK.

[ChartsandGrafs]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/pv30r2z6.jpg

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Are the infowars forums down or something?

[wgbgator]

Are the infowars forums down or something?

Alex Jones was on Piers Morgan last night. The whole operation falls apart when he leaves the bunker.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I'm sure that was an intelligent discussion.

[wgbgator]

I'm sure that was an intelligent discussion.


How could it not be with two high minded intellects engaging in deep discusion of today's pressing issues?

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/08/alex_jones_brings_the_crazy_to_piers_morgan_show/

[ChartsandGrafs]

Are the infowars forums down or something?

You tell me. You probably spend more time there than I do.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Burn?

[ChartsandGrafs]

LOL, got to love the cognitive dissonance.

A: "Drones are murdering a large number of innocents, including women and children, overseas. "

B: "But, but, but... Alex Jones! Infowars! A derp a derp a derp!"

[ChartsandGrafs]

Derp?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Yeah, the "I know you are but what am I" come is illuminating insight.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I happen to wholly agree that our drone policy is murderous and awful. But most of what you post is so hopelessly superficial and so lacking in nuance that I couldn't help but assume you were an Alex Jones fan. My apologies if I was wrong.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I happen to wholly agree that our drone policy is murderous and awful. But most of what you post is so hopelessly superficial and so lacking in nuance that I couldn't help but assume you were an Alex Jones fan. My apologies if I was wrong.

Making uninformed assumptions doesn't sound very nuanced of you.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Nah, it's fairly informed.

[gatorev12]

Making uninformed assumptions doesn't sound very nuanced of you.

The irony in this post is so thick, you'd need a chainsaw to cut through it

[gatorev12]

Yeah, the "I know you are but what am I" come is illuminating insight.

Illuminating as to the maturity of the poster...but given his posting history, I'm not surprised he comes across as rather childish.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Like I said, I totally agree about the drone stuff. It's disgusting and nobody should support it.

But when your posting history looks like a Alex Jones Show recap bullet list, it's hard to take it all seriously as a whole.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Nah, it's fairly informed.

No, not really. You made an assumption you later felt the need to apologize for.

That doesn't sound very informed at all.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Illuminating as to the maturity of the poster...but given his posting history, I'm not surprised he comes across as rather childish.

All I do is hold the mirror up. What you see is merely just a reflection of what you are.

Don't be mad. I'm just the messenger.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Deep, man.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

No, not really. You made an assumption you later felt the need to apologize for.

That doesn't sound very informed at all.

Let you in on a little secret: I stand by that assumption.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Let you in on a little secret: I stand by that assumption.

I'd expect nothing less.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I'm a Bilderberg Group Operative, what can I say?

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm a Bilderberg Group Operative, what can I say?

Not smart enough. DMV worker, perhaps, but not Bilderberg operative.

Maybe some other time.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

It's a shame, because some of the superficial or imaginary narrative talking points the conspiracy fans perpetuate tend to muddy the waters for real problems espoused by the same people, like military drone use.

Instead of making people think anyone who speaks ill of military drone use is an idiot, just keep ignorance of fiat currency systems to yourself.

Now back to the prison planet and my CFR meeting ...

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's a shame, because some of the superficial or imaginary narrative talking points the conspiracy fans perpetuate tend to muddy the waters for real problems espoused by the same people, like military drone use.

Instead of making people think anyone who speaks ill of military drone use is an idiot, just keep ignorance of fiat currency systems to yourself.

Now back to the prison planet and my CFR meeting ...

LOL, "ignorance". Says the guy educated in economics by the State's gaggle of clown economists. That's pretty rich.

Tell me, how much is all the real estate that I own inside your head worth?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Right, I always forget that higher education is the tool of the globalist bankers.

You just can't win!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Right, I always forget that higher education is the tool of the globalist bankers.

You just can't win!

Of course you can't win. You're too uninformed and just plain wrong to win. Pitching an internet fit at me isn't going to solve that.

Here, read and learn something for a change. It's not hard, I promise:

The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession, an investigation by the Huffington Post has found.

This dominance helps explain how, even after the Fed failed to foresee the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, the central bank has largely escaped criticism from academic economists. In the Fed's thrall, the economists missed it,

"The Fed has a lock on the economics world," says Joshua Rosner, a Wall Street analyst who correctly called the meltdown. "There is no room for other views, which I guess is why economists

One critical way the Fed exerts control on academic economists is through its relationships with the field's gatekeepers. For instance, at the Journal of Monetary Economics, a must-publish venue for rising economists, more than half of the editorial board members are currently on the Fed payroll --and the rest have been in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Of course, I know better because I actually went to school, met these people, worked in the industry and learned how the Fed actually works.

You know better because you went to abovetopsecret.com.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

And had you read anything I've ever written about the subject, you'd know I think our Federal Reserve Bank is totally flawed. But nah ...

[ChartsandGrafs]

Of course, I know better because I actually went to school, met these people, worked in the industry and learned how the Fed actually works.

LOL, and the laugh riot continues...

You went to a State/Federal Reserve indoctrination farm, met and hobnobbed with a bunch of shills, drew a paycheck from a system based on institutional fraud, and learned a sanitized, government-approved version of how the Fed works.

You know better because you went to abovetopsecret.com.

Project much?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

LOL, and the laugh riot continues...

You went to a State/Federal Reserve indoctrination farm, met and hobnobbed with a bunch of shills, drew a paycheck from a system based on institutional fraud, and learned a sanitized, government-approved version of how the Fed works.

And you went to nothing and did nothing.

[ChartsandGrafs]

And you went to nothing and did nothing.

Let's assume this is true for a moment. I'm a nobody who went nowhere and did nothing. We'll also ignore the fact that this would logically have no bearing on the validity of my arguments.

If this is true, why do I apparently own so much real estate inside your head? Personally speaking, I ignore the kind of people you described. They bore me. I might give them a few responses, but then I move on, almost permanently. On the other hand, when it comes to me, you can't leave me alone. You always come back, engage me, and then whine when I don't roll over and give you the last line. Always. You can't seem to rationally refute anything I say. It's a mix of one-liners, innuendos, and petty, mocking attacks.

If I previously embarrassed you in a prior debate or made you feel shame, speaking man to man, I'm sorry. So how is it going to be?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Let's assume this is true for a moment. I'm a nobody who went nowhere and did nothing. We'll also ignore the fact that this would logically have no bearing on the validity of my arguments.

Yes, a lack of knowledge has no bearing on the validity of your knowledge-free arguments. :laugh:

If this is true, why do I apparently own so much real estate inside your head?

I have literally thought about you for maybe 2 minutes while replying to this thread. I'd wager you've devoted more energy to me, considering you know what I went to school for. I couldn't say a thing about you except that you don't know much and think all education is brainwashing.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

But I do like the "you're obsessed with me!" method of bailing on an argument. Totally novel. Keep with it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yes, a lack of knowledge has no bearing on the validity of your knowledge-free arguments. :laugh:

LOL, you obviously didn't read the line you quoted and responded to.

Government education for the win!

I have literally thought about you for maybe 2 minutes while replying to this thread. I'd wager you've devoted more energy to me, considering you know what I went to school for. I couldn't say a thing about you except that you don't know much and think all education is brainwashing.

If you don't know anything about me, how do you know I don't know anything, didn't go anywhere, and didn't do anything. As usual, you're not making any sense.

I suspect that this is because you are all hot and bothered. Chill, man, chill.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

You have seriously trotted out the "u mad" and "you're obsessed" dodges in the same thread. That might be an Internet first. :laugh:

[ChartsandGrafs]

You have seriously trotted out the "u mad" and "you're obsessed" dodges in the same thread. That might be an Internet first. :laugh:

LOL, says the guy who trotted out "burn?" right from the start.

Weak. Troll. Sauce.

[gatorev12]

All I do is hold the mirror up. What you see is merely just a reflection of what you are.

Don't be mad. I'm just the messenger.

Responding with "I know you are but what am I?"--regardless of how you re-word it--makes you look like a toddler throwing their toys out of the pram to use a British expression for juvenile behavior/retorts.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Responding with "I know you are but what am I?"--regardless of how you re-word it--makes you look like a toddler throwing their toys out of the pram to use a British expression for juvenile behavior/retorts.

How delightful a thought!

If I'm the toddler, you must be the toy getting chucked across the room.

Fantastic!

[gatorev12]

How delightful a thought!

If I'm the toddler, you must be the toy getting chucked across the room.

Fantastic!

What a vivid little imagination you have. Keep dreamin big there little guy.

[ChartsandGrafs]

What a vivid little imagination you have. Keep dreamin big there little guy.

LOL, says the guys who imagines that his government always tells him the truth.

http://i.imgur.com/QgJUL.gif

[gatorev12]

LOL, says the guys who imagines that his government always tells him the truth.


More of that vivid little imagination of yours...inventing quotes that were never said as easily as you invent a false reality in your little brain. Run along now--it's almost bedtime for you!

[ChartsandGrafs]

More of that vivid little imagination of yours...inventing quotes that were never said as easily as you invent a false reality in your little brain. Run along now--it's almost bedtime for you!

LOL, you sound a little frustrated. Those trolling skills of yours must be a little rusty.

I happen to wholly agree that our drone policy is murderous and awful.

You must have missed this post. Your little buddy called Obama's drone policy, "murderous". I wonder why we don't see you whining and complaining about it to him, though?

"But, but, but, intent!"

LOL.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Charts, believe me, I find nothing but sordid amusement in people with no education or experience discounting those with both in lieu of Internet information, espousing nothing but the superficial talking points from conspiracy Web sites.

But I do realize that convincing yourself that I'm mad or frustrated is your only argumentative solace, so I'm not about to take that away from you. :laugh:

[ChartsandGrafs]

Charts, believe me, I find nothing but sordid amusement in people with no education or experience discounting those with both in lieu of Internet information, espousing nothing but the superficial talking points from conspiracy Web sites.

But I do realize that convincing yourself that I'm mad or frustrated is your only argumentative solace, so I'm not about to take that away from you. :laugh:

LOL, nope, don't believe!

[orangeblueorangeblue]

As expected.

[ChartsandGrafs]

How's that real estate of mine?

I'm thinking about building on it.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

We can share each others' as summer homes.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Finally a sensible suggestion.

[gatorev12]

LOL, you sound a little frustrated. Those trolling skills of yours must be a little rusty.


Trolling would imply I do nothing on these boards but post inflammatory and off-topic responses to provoke responses. Which, of the two of us--defines you pretty clearly. Your posting history shows you go from thread to thread wanting to talk about Alex Jones-type conspiracy nonsense without any shred of evidence to support your theories/allegations. This is at least the sixth or seventh thread you've tried to bring up our drone policy on topics that have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Now, as a resident troll, you probably live for flustering people and provoking emotional responses. I realize most studies who look into why people troll on the internet find that they're most often lonely, marginalized individuals who engage in trolling as a way of seeking attention that they're denied in real life. So, of course, you think any response to your trolling is you "winning" and you pounce upon it.

In actuality, it's fairly easy to expose your BS for what it is because you run from defending your posts and avoid any semblance of reasoned argument/debate with supporting facts or evidence to support your opinions. I have no idea why the mods let you come back, but if you keep your off-topic trolling going, your return might be brief.

You must have missed this post. Your little buddy called Obama's drone policy, "murderous". I wonder why we don't see you whining and complaining about it to him, though?


Read it fine, thanks. If I wanted to address it, I would have. I don't care if OBOB or you object to the policy or hold the opinion we can (and should) do better. Difference being, OBOB doesn't run around from thread to thread yelling "murder murder murder" (as if repeating something three times actually makes it true) like a spoiled, petulant toddler trying to seek attention--and if he were to discuss it, he'd actually use facts and evidence to support his opinion. Something I've yet to see you do.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Trolling would imply I do nothing on these boards but post inflammatory and off-topic responses to provoke responses. Which, of the two of us--defines you pretty clearly. Your posting history shows you go from thread to thread wanting to talk about Alex Jones-type conspiracy nonsense without any shred of evidence to support your theories/allegations. This is at least the sixth or seventh thread you've tried to bring up our drone policy on topics that have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Now, as a resident troll, you probably live for flustering people and provoking emotional responses. I realize most studies who look into why people troll on the internet find that they're most often lonely, marginalized individuals who engage in trolling as a way of seeking attention that they're denied in real life. So, of course, you think any response to your trolling is you "winning" and you pounce upon it.

In actuality, it's fairly easy to expose your BS for what it is because you run from defending your posts and avoid any semblance of reasoned argument/debate with supporting facts or evidence to support your opinions. I have no idea why the mods let you come back, but if you keep your off-topic trolling going, your return might be brief.



Read it fine, thanks. If I wanted to address it, I would have. I don't care if OBOB or you object to the policy or hold the opinion we can (and should) do better. Difference being, OBOB doesn't run around from thread to thread yelling "murder murder murder" (as if repeating something three times actually makes it true) like a spoiled, petulant toddler trying to seek attention--and if he were to discuss it, he'd actually use facts and evidence to support his opinion. Something I've yet to see you do.

LOL, too long; didn't read.

[gatorev12]

LOL, too long; didn't read.

Well, that certainly puts things in perspective why you hold such nonsensical opinions unsupported by facts or evidence if 3-4 paragraphs of text is all it takes for your brain to shut down.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's not the paragraphs that repel me, it's the pro-state troll bleating contained within that does it.