Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > edm.general > #117458 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-11-24 14:28 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-11-27 11:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 450 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to edm.general
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-24 14:28 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-24 22:13 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-24 15:20 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-24 15:29 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-11-24 17:25 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-25 06:14 +0200
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-26 10:43 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-11-26 11:06 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-26 12:29 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-26 11:35 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-26 22:13 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-26 18:43 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-27 02:04 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 12:57 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-27 21:49 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 17:47 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-27 23:39 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 20:42 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-28 02:07 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-27 19:48 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 22:15 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-28 04:50 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-27 22:22 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-28 01:09 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 22:30 -0800
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-28 19:19 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 20:23 -0800
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-28 05:00 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 22:04 -0800
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-24 18:56 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-24 17:05 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-24 17:11 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-24 17:42 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-24 17:08 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-25 17:37 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-25 06:28 +0200
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-25 04:44 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-25 17:51 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-25 23:03 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-25 16:14 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-26 10:28 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-26 11:35 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-11-27 20:47 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 15:51 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-11-28 03:39 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-28 12:14 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-28 10:17 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-25 19:08 -0500
Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-26 03:01 +0000
Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-25 20:05 -0700
Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-26 01:40 -0500
NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-26 10:45 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2019-11-26 09:16 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-26 22:16 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2019-11-27 08:27 +0000
NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-26 08:10 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-26 11:34 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-26 10:59 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-26 12:06 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-26 15:17 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-26 13:23 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-26 22:26 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-26 22:25 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-26 18:42 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-27 02:11 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-26 19:36 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2019-11-27 08:30 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-27 21:51 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 17:50 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 16:08 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-27 23:42 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 21:03 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-28 02:09 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 21:51 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 20:49 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-28 02:53 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-27 20:15 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 22:41 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-28 07:05 +0200
NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-28 05:58 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 22:07 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-28 00:08 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-28 19:44 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-28 19:43 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-29 05:54 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-29 13:02 -0500
TED PROVES ATHEISTS ARE TROLLS % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-29 11:08 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-30 05:51 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-30 00:42 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-30 09:09 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-30 11:20 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-01 05:47 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-01 04:43 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-02 08:29 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 15:29 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-04 06:08 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 16:25 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 14:29 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 16:42 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 14:47 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 17:29 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-04 17:44 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 17:48 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-04 17:54 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 18:16 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-04 18:21 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 19:18 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 15:49 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 17:57 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 09:08 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 11:53 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-05 14:17 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 12:18 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-05 14:25 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 12:29 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-12-05 20:27 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-12-05 20:38 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-12-05 21:01 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-12-05 22:53 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-05 13:55 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-05 14:46 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 18:37 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-05 16:40 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 - 2019-12-05 16:43 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 16:41 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 18:48 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-06 07:34 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-06 08:38 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-07 22:10 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-12-08 09:09 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-08 15:32 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-08 12:27 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-12-08 19:53 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-08 15:32 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-06 11:10 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-07 22:11 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-08 12:46 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-08 15:34 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-09 05:38 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-09 03:33 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-09 20:39 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-09 15:45 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-09 20:11 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-09 21:36 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-10 05:54 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-10 20:18 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-11 05:36 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-10 22:24 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-11 02:18 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-11 22:41 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-11 19:01 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-12 05:24 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-11 20:46 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-12 15:13 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-13 05:58 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-13 03:57 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-13 10:01 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-13 15:42 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-13 15:10 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books !valid@!valid.invalid (Ï) - 2019-12-13 22:17 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-13 17:26 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-13 22:00 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-13 18:48 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-13 16:56 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-13 20:57 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <More.Bull.Schiff@gmail.com> - 2019-12-13 20:50 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 14:04 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 12:11 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 15:30 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 13:39 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 15:46 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 13:52 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 16:04 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 14:15 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 16:25 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 16:13 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 20:01 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-14 18:05 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-14 17:59 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 18:44 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 21:12 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 19:20 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 21:32 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 19:45 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 22:28 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 20:34 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 23:08 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 21:20 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 23:22 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-15 07:40 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-15 03:15 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-15 11:43 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-19 15:45 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-19 06:16 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-19 15:57 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-12-19 21:03 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-19 17:38 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-12-19 22:53 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-19 18:59 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <More.Bull.Schiff@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 09:53 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-15 16:53 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <More.Bull.Schiff@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 16:08 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-19 06:18 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-20 22:01 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-20 15:55 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-24 16:39 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-14 17:58 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 18:32 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 20:52 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 18:57 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 21:38 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 19:47 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 22:30 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 20:37 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 23:41 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 21:43 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-19 17:05 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-19 15:09 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-19 17:31 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-19 15:50 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-19 18:47 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-19 16:59 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-19 19:09 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-19 17:12 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-20 15:31 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-20 22:05 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-20 15:10 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-20 18:02 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-20 16:07 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-20 20:58 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-20 19:12 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-21 23:57 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-22 06:32 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-22 10:23 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <More.Bull.Schiff@gmail.com> - 2019-12-21 11:31 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-14 21:53 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-14 22:01 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street.> - 2019-12-19 17:07 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <More.Bull.Schiff@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 09:56 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-12 14:40 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-08 03:19 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-08 15:36 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-06 15:49 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 18:43 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-05 16:46 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 16:56 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 19:08 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-12-05 23:56 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-05 17:07 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-12-06 00:22 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 17:24 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-12-06 00:29 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-07 22:03 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-07 22:02 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-07 22:01 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 19:08 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx35 - 2019-12-05 17:10 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-05 17:11 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 17:13 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 19:26 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 17:30 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 19:36 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 17:42 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-06 15:50 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-05 17:47 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-06 15:52 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-12-06 00:27 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 17:31 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-12-06 01:38 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 18:50 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 19:05 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-05 17:10 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 17:14 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 19:19 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-05 17:49 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 18:03 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-05 18:35 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 18:48 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-06 15:08 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Sharx335 <sharx35@telus.net> - 2019-12-06 13:10 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-06 13:20 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-12-06 20:25 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-06 13:32 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-06 14:20 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-06 16:19 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-05 17:48 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-05 17:45 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-12-05 21:24 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 18:42 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-05 14:45 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 18:38 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 16:53 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 19:07 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 17:15 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 18:34 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-05 19:04 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 17:14 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-12-04 21:46 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 14:53 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-04 15:00 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-04 17:13 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 15:38 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-12-04 22:44 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-04 15:46 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-06 02:07 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 17:44 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-05 10:46 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 17:11 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-06 07:40 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-06 15:56 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 09:07 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 11:52 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 18:32 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-06 07:44 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-06 15:48 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 18:31 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-06 07:42 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-06 01:56 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-06 12:50 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-07 22:12 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-08 03:24 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-08 12:21 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-12-08 13:07 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-08 21:47 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-08 17:43 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-09 05:40 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-09 10:01 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-09 20:41 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 23:07 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-11 05:38 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-10 22:22 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-11 22:42 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-11 19:14 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-12 05:25 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-12 15:19 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-13 05:59 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-13 04:03 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-13 22:02 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-13 17:53 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-14 05:20 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-13 20:34 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 11:56 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-15 07:43 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <More.Bull.Schiff@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 10:03 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <More.Bull.Schiff@gmail.com> - 2019-12-13 20:53 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-14 14:09 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-15 07:43 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <More.Bull.Schiff@gmail.com> - 2019-12-15 10:02 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-12 14:42 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-08 15:38 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-08 13:47 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-08 17:27 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-12-06 15:25 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books invalid@!nvalid.invalid (Ï) - 2019-12-06 16:59 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-28 08:19 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 22:32 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-28 19:48 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-28 17:52 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-29 05:56 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-29 09:26 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-01 05:51 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-01 04:51 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-02 05:56 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-02 10:06 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-02 18:35 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-03 05:56 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 02:26 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-03 11:44 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 15:28 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-04 05:44 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 16:23 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-05 10:50 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 17:17 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-05 09:08 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 18:40 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-05 18:59 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-05 19:25 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-06 07:45 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-06 08:39 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-06 16:11 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-06 14:24 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-07 23:14 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-29 13:45 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-28 07:20 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2019-11-28 08:29 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-28 19:46 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 22:06 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 19:42 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2019-11-28 08:27 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-28 04:54 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-28 19:53 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Kernal Korn <vet@invalid.com> - 2019-11-27 16:22 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 22:43 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 20:50 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-11-28 05:06 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 21:45 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-28 19:18 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-28 17:22 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-29 05:58 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-29 09:27 -0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-30 05:54 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-29 23:10 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-11-30 06:42 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-30 10:34 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-11-30 18:02 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-30 13:42 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-30 11:46 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-01 05:52 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-01 04:53 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-02 05:58 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-11-30 10:54 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-30 14:21 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-30 12:28 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-11-30 22:19 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-30 17:21 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted - 2019-11-30 15:26 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Peter Pan <pan@172.16.1.1> - 2019-12-02 00:40 +0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-02 06:00 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-02 10:09 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Peter Pan <pan@172.16.1.1> - 2019-12-03 06:53 +0800
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-02 18:43 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-02 16:57 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-03 05:58 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-03 10:19 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 16:36 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 16:20 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-03 14:25 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 17:43 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 16:19 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 16:17 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 16:15 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-03 14:21 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 17:29 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-04 05:46 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 15:47 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-12-03 14:24 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-01 05:55 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-01 04:55 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-12-02 08:31 +0000
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <greghall@høme.fake> - 2019-12-02 10:12 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-03 16:30 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-12-04 05:48 +0200
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-12-04 15:52 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-29 13:07 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 13:01 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-27 11:25 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 14:21 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-27 16:20 -0700
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-11-27 18:29 -0500
Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-11-27 11:38 -0700
Page 3 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 23 Next page →
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 10:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.1662565466725467315@us.news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #118306 |
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:14:31 -0700, Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:03:09 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >How about this direct quote? "They're bringing drugs, they're > >bringing crime, they're rapists." That was Trump's evaluation of > >Hispanic people during 2016 campaigning, if you'll recall. > It's true. I lived on the border, you hide from it. Hiding and lying are her MO. > > > >See also: > > > >https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comm ents/588067/ > > > >https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-hist ory > Lib biased rags. Indeed. > > > >>> > All of the things he promised were beneficial for the working > >> class, > >> > >> > >>> How is any of his racism "beneficial for the working class", koOk? > >> (Much > >>> of the working class is nonwhite, in case you didn't know.) > >> > >> > >> He's not racist. > > > >See above, fucktard. > Just because someone called him one doesn't make it so. I can say you > are a fine upstanding citizen but it doesn't make it so. LOL. I really wanted to believe Trump is racist. And that he colluded with Russia. But when I read their evidence, I found it was all smoke and mirrors. So then I wondered why they were so viciously lying about him. > > > >>> How was his trade rhetoric "beneficial for the working > >>> > >> class"?(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-14/trump-s-chin > >> a-tariffs-hit-america-s-poor-and-working-class-the-hardest) > >> > >> > >>> > But as I've already noted, the only other choice was Hillary > >>> > Clinton. Whom you voted for, right? Of course you did. > >> > >> > >>> Nadegda voted for Bernie Sanders in her state's primary, IIRC. > >> > >> > >> Uh huh. And for Hillary in the general election, no doubt. > > > >It was that or Trump, in a state that was potentially in play. And I > >sure as hell wasn't voting for that racist motherfucker. > Much better a slug criminal who turned her back on the family's of > dead troopers, one who couldn't even face her own puppets and concede, > one who cried all 3 years about why she lost. We'd known for 20 years that she's evil. > > > >>> >> Every nasty thing that has been said about Trump has proven to > >> be > >>> >> true: that he's a racist, that he's a fascist, that he's a > >> rapist ... > >>> > > >>> > He's none of those. > >> > >> > >>> Wrong: > >> > >> > >>> > >> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comme > >> nts/588067/ > >> > >> > >>> > >> https://1069thefox.com/news/030030-poll-most-americans-say-trump-is-rac > >> ist/ > >> > >> > >>> > >> https://blog.usejournal.com/donald-trump-is-marching-america-towards-fa > >> scism-ae50fdd76f85 > >> > >> > >>> > >> http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/trump-and-the-rhetoric-of-fascis > >> m.html > >> > >> > >>> > >> https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2015/07/91447/ivana-trump-rape-allegat > >> ions-donald-trump > >> > >> > >>> > >> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/21/18701098/trump-accuse > >> rs-sexual-assault-rape-e-jean-carroll > >> > >> You cite articles from known purveyors of propaganda. I've carefully > >> read such before, trying to find real substance in them (because I > >> honestly did want to believe what they told us about Trump) but I > >> found nothing but bullshit. However, it's sufficient to fool > >> unthinking morons like you. > > > >Ad hominem argument. Invalid. You're a typical far-right Trump supporter > >in at least this respect: any source of evidence that Trump is bad you > >dismiss as "fake news" without trying to understand the underlying > >reasons for being critical of Trump. > > > >> If you'd like, kelsi, I can refer you to leftist publications that > >> are much closer to genuine than the tripe you read (although you've > >> proven you don't really read them anuway). > > > >Fox and Breitbart? Hehehehe, yeah right. She'd sooner read Vogon poetry, > >I expect. I know I would. > What makes you think your lib propaganda is the truth? Faith. Blind faith. And if you tell her the truth, you're a "kook". > > > >-- > >FNVWe Nadegda > > > >"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with > >you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM > >Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: > >http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600 > Nads will ignore this because she gets slapped down everytime she > doesn't. She either ignores or lies. It's all she has.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 11:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cnggq5.p2j.19.6@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #118332 |
On 2019-11-26 8:28 a.m., Ted wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:14:31 -0700, Scooter <Scoot@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:03:09 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > > >> >How about this direct quote? "They're bringing drugs, they're >> >bringing crime, they're rapists." That was Trump's evaluation of >> >Hispanic people during 2016 campaigning, if you'll recall. > > >> It's true. I lived on the border, you hide from it. > > Hiding and lying are her MO. > >> > >> >See also: >> > >> >> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comm > ents/588067/ >> > >> >> https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-hist > ory > > >> Lib biased rags. > > Indeed. > >> > >> >>> > All of the things he promised were beneficial for the working >> >> class, >> >> >> >>> How is any of his racism "beneficial for the working class", > koOk? >> >> (Much >>> of the working class is nonwhite, in case you didn't know.) >> >> >> >> He's not racist. >> > >> >See above, fucktard. > > >> Just because someone called him one doesn't make it so. I can say > you >> are a fine upstanding citizen but it doesn't make it so. > > LOL. I really wanted to believe Trump is racist. And that he colluded > with Russia. But when I read their evidence, I found it was all smoke > and mirrors. So then I wondered why they were so viciously lying about him. >> > >> >>> How was his trade rhetoric "beneficial for the working >>> >> > class"?(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-14/trump-s-chin > >> >> a-tariffs-hit-america-s-poor-and-working-class-the-hardest) >> >> >> >>> > But as I've already noted, the only other choice was Hillary >> >>> > Clinton. Whom you voted for, right? Of course you did. >> >> >> >>> Nadegda voted for Bernie Sanders in her state's primary, IIRC. >> >> >> >> Uh huh. And for Hillary in the general election, no doubt. >> > >> >It was that or Trump, in a state that was potentially in play. And > I >> >sure as hell wasn't voting for that racist motherfucker. > > >> Much better a slug criminal who turned her back on the family's of >> dead troopers, one who couldn't even face her own puppets and > concede, >> one who cried all 3 years about why she lost. > > We'd known for 20 years that she's evil. > >> > >> >>> >> Every nasty thing that has been said about Trump has proven > to >> >> be >>> >> true: that he's a racist, that he's a fascist, that he's >> a >> rapist ... >> >>> > >>> > He's none of those. >> >> >> >>> Wrong: >> >> >> >>> >> > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comme > >> >> nts/588067/ >> >> >> >>> >> > https://1069thefox.com/news/030030-poll-most-americans-say-trump-is-rac > >> >> ist/ >> >> >> >>> >> > https://blog.usejournal.com/donald-trump-is-marching-america-towards-fa > >> >> scism-ae50fdd76f85 >> >> >> >>> >> > http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/trump-and-the-rhetoric-of-fascis > >> >> m.html >> >> >> >>> >> > https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2015/07/91447/ivana-trump-rape-allegat > >> >> ions-donald-trump >> >> >> >>> >> > https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/21/18701098/trump-accuse > >> >> rs-sexual-assault-rape-e-jean-carroll >> >> >> You cite articles from known purveyors of propaganda. I've > carefully >> >> read such before, trying to find real substance in them (because > I >> >> honestly did want to believe what they told us about Trump) but > I >> >> found nothing but bullshit. However, it's sufficient to fool >> >> unthinking morons like you. >> > >> >Ad hominem argument. Invalid. You're a typical far-right Trump > supporter >> >in at least this respect: any source of evidence that Trump is bad > you >> >dismiss as "fake news" without trying to understand the underlying >> >reasons for being critical of Trump. >> > >> >> If you'd like, kelsi, I can refer you to leftist publications > that >> >> are much closer to genuine than the tripe you read (although > you've >> >> proven you don't really read them anuway). >> > >> >Fox and Breitbart? Hehehehe, yeah right. She'd sooner read Vogon > poetry, >> >I expect. I know I would. > > >> What makes you think your lib propaganda is the truth? > > Faith. Blind faith. And if you tell her the truth, you're a "kook". > >> > >> >-- >FNVWe Nadegda >> > >> >"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. > I'm with >> >you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM >> >Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: >> >http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600 > > > > >> Nads will ignore this because she gets slapped down everytime she >> doesn't. > > > She either ignores or lies. It's all she has. so she does what you do , wait until you find out she's a male
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-27 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h485n6FaffU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #118332 |
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:28:23 -0500, Ted wrote: > LOL. I really wanted to believe Trump is racist. And that he colluded > with Russia. But when I read their evidence, I found it was all smoke > and mirrors. So then I wondered why they were so viciously lying about > him. Obvious concern troll is obvious. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-27 15:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.6618861296117168338@us.news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #118397 |
On 27 Nov 2019 20:47:35 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:28:23 -0500, Ted wrote: > > LOL. I really wanted to believe Trump is racist. And that he colluded > > with Russia. But when I read their evidence, I found it was all smoke > > and mirrors. So then I wondered why they were so viciously lying about > > him. > Obvious concern troll is obvious. > -- > -v Whatever that means, dude. But since I have enormous respect for you, please elaborate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-28 03:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h48ts1F4ro8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #118398 |
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:51:09 -0500, Ted wrote: > On 27 Nov 2019 20:47:35 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:28:23 -0500, Ted wrote: > > >> > LOL. I really wanted to believe Trump is racist. And that he > colluded >> > with Russia. But when I read their evidence, I found it was all > smoke >> > and mirrors. So then I wondered why they were so viciously lying > about >> > him. > > >> Obvious concern troll is obvious. > > >> -- >> -v > > > Whatever that means, dude. But since I have enormous respect for you, > please elaborate. https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/ -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-28 12:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.7048033730652373814@us.news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #118451 |
On 28 Nov 2019 03:39:45 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:51:09 -0500, Ted wrote: > > On 27 Nov 2019 20:47:35 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:28:23 -0500, Ted wrote: > > > > > >> > LOL. I really wanted to believe Trump is racist. And that he > > colluded > >> > with Russia. But when I read their evidence, I found it was all > > smoke > >> > and mirrors. So then I wondered why they were so viciously lying > > about > >> > him. > > > > > >> Obvious concern troll is obvious. > > > > > >> -- > >> -v > > > > > > Whatever that means, dude. But since I have enormous respect for you, > > please elaborate. > https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/ > -- > -v Good call. I hadn't known there was a dedicated term for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-28 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cnlkvt.gek.19.15@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #118510 |
On 2019-11-28 10:14 a.m., Ted wrote: > On 28 Nov 2019 03:39:45 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:51:09 -0500, Ted wrote: > > >> > On 27 Nov 2019 20:47:35 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:28:23 -0500, Ted wrote: >> > > >> > LOL. I really wanted to believe Trump is racist. And that he >> > colluded >> >> > with Russia. But when I read their evidence, I found it was all >> > smoke >> >> > and mirrors. So then I wondered why they were so viciously > lying >> > about >> >> > him. >> > > >> Obvious concern troll is obvious. >> > > >> -- >> >> -v >> > > > Whatever that means, dude. But since I have enormous respect for > you, >> > please elaborate. > > >> https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/ > > >> -- >> -v > > > Good call. I hadn't known there was a dedicated term for it. there's lots of stuff you don't know cause you're an atheist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-25 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.5635524360805219695@us.news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #118305 |
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:03:09 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:51:55 -0500, Ted wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 06:28:43 +0200, kensi > > <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> On 11/24/2019 6:56 PM, Ted wrote: > >> > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 14:28:18 -0500, Ted wrote: > >> >> > <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/23/2019 9:26 PM, Ted wrote: > >> >> >>> The working class who tipped the scales to elect Trump. > >> >> > >> >> Wrong: > >> >> > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its- > >> >> time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/ > >> > > >> > Who owns WaPo? > > > > > >> Relevance? > <crickets> Sorry. Publications like WaPo, NYT, etc. are gonna sing the tunes of their owners, in this case anti-Trump propaganda. If you were following along, you know what I mean. > >> >> https://solidarity-us.org/atc/186/p4859/ > >> > > >> > That website could be valid, but I don't recognize any of the > > authors, > >> > which is a huge red flag. And the article you cited contains a > > table > >> > that proves my point, although that was unintended by the author, > > whose > >> > intentional deceit is evident from his exclusion of stats from > > 1984. > > > > > >> How would "stats from 1984" be relevant to the demographics of 2016 > >> Trump voters, k0ok? > > > > You mustn't have even bothered reading the article yourself, as the > > author obviously believes the stats from other election years > We weren't discussing other election years. We were discussing 2016. Stop > trying to weasel out of admitting that you were wrong about the core of > Trump's support, kooky. Your attempts are transparent and as you can see > they don't work on us. Are you really unable to read, Nadega? If so, read what I said. The author himself points to other election years to prove his hypothesis. My point was that he deliberately withheld data that he felt was contradictory to what he was trying to prove, i.e. from 1984. Do you even read the articles you cite? It's obvious that you don't. > >> >> From racist immigration bans? > >> > > >> > You think they're racist because that's what you've been > > brainwashed to > >> > believe. > > > > > >> No, we think they're racist because they're fucking racist. Trump > >> explicitly said he didn't want Muslims and Mexicans in the US, fer > >> Chrissake. Weren't you paying attention? > > > > > > You believe what your lying heroes tell you, kelsi. > Who is "kelsi", kook? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that > alias. Fuck you, Nadega. > > They're never able to provide direct quotes. > How about this direct quote? "They're bringing drugs, they're > bringing crime, they're rapists." That was Trump's evaluation of > Hispanic people during 2016 campaigning, if you'll recall. He wasn't referring to Hispanic people, but illegal immigrants. And he certainly didn't imply that he meant all of them. His audience knew exactly what he meant. But it was later twisted by liars to mean what you so dishonestly (or, to be fair to you, stupidly) claim. Similarly, when he called the MS-13 gang members "animals", your lying filth masters claimed he was referring to Hispanics in general. > See also: > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comme nts/588067/ TheAtlantic > https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-histo ry Vox (nuff said) You fucking imbecile. > >> > All of the things he promised were beneficial for the working > > class, > > > > > >> How is any of his racism "beneficial for the working class", koOk? > > (Much > >> of the working class is nonwhite, in case you didn't know.) > > > > > > He's not racist. > See above, fucktard. The lie. I see it. > >> How was his trade rhetoric "beneficial for the working > >> > > class"?(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-14/trump-s-chin > > a-tariffs-hit-america-s-poor-and-working-class-the-hardest) > > > > > >> > But as I've already noted, the only other choice was Hillary > >> > Clinton. Whom you voted for, right? Of course you did. > > > > > >> Nadegda voted for Bernie Sanders in her state's primary, IIRC. > > > > Me> > Uh huh. And for Hillary in the general election, no doubt. > It was that or Trump, in a state that was potentially in play. And I > sure as hell wasn't voting for that racist motherfucker. I didn't vote for Trump either. I think I already mentioned that I almost never voted Republican. But I wasn't about to vote for that evil bitch. Especially after what they did to Bernie. But I really shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth. I'm lucky you people are so damn dumb. > >> >> Every nasty thing that has been said about Trump has proven to > > be > >> >> true: that he's a racist, that he's a fascist, that he's a > > rapist ... > >> > > >> > He's none of those. > > > > > >> Wrong: > > > > > >> > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comme > > nts/588067/ > > > > > >> > > https://1069thefox.com/news/030030-poll-most-americans-say-trump-is-rac > > ist/ > > > > > >> > > https://blog.usejournal.com/donald-trump-is-marching-america-towards-fa > > scism-ae50fdd76f85 > > > > > >> > > http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/trump-and-the-rhetoric-of-fascis > > m.html > > > > > >> > > https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2015/07/91447/ivana-trump-rape-allegat > > ions-donald-trump > > > > > >> > > https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/21/18701098/trump-accuse > > rs-sexual-assault-rape-e-jean-carroll > > > > You cite articles from known purveyors of propaganda. I've carefully > > read such before, trying to find real substance in them (because I > > honestly did want to believe what they told us about Trump) but I > > found nothing but bullshit. However, it's sufficient to fool > > unthinking morons like you. > Ad hominem argument. Invalid. Of course. You're another of those semiliterate buffoons who doesn't know what "ad hominem" means. How unsurprising. > You're a typical far-right Trump supporter > in at least this respect: any source of evidence that Trump is bad you > dismiss as "fake news" without trying to understand the underlying > reasons for being critical of Trump. LOL. This is typical. You fake leftists always conclude I'm a rightist. On the contrary, I very much wanted to believe the dirt on Trump. But I was bright enough to see through the lies. > > If you'd like, kelsi, I can refer you to leftist publications that > > are much closer to genuine than the tripe you read (although you've > > proven you don't really read them anuway). > Fox and Breitbart? Hehehehe, yeah right. She'd sooner read Vogon poetry, > I expect. I know I would. Did you even see the word "leftist" in what I posted? Well, maybe you did, but you're so stupid you don't know what it means. That wouldn't surprise me at all. You're a True Believer, Nadega. No different from the lying christers we encounter in a.a. And just as stupid. Let me guess. You think I'm committing an ad hom fallacy, right? LMAO. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 03:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qri4hl$rfo$28@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #118307 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:08:34 -0500, Ted wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:03:09 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > melt! >> On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:51:55 -0500, Ted wrote: > > >> > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 06:28:43 +0200, kensi >> > <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >> On 11/24/2019 6:56 PM, Ted wrote: >> >> > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 14:28:18 -0500, Ted wrote: >> >> >> > <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/23/2019 9:26 PM, Ted wrote: >> >> >> >>> The working class who tipped the scales to elect Trump. >> >> >> >> >> >> Wrong: >> >> >> >> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its- >> >> >> > time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/ >> >> > >> >> > Who owns WaPo? >> > >> > >> >> Relevance? > > >> <crickets> > > Sorry. Publications like WaPo, NYT, etc. are gonna sing the tunes of > their owners, in this case anti-Trump propaganda. If you were > following along, you know what I mean. Are you kidding? Those guys *love* Trump, or at least they love his giant tax cuts for billionaires. That's why their criticism of him is so tepid, with no sounding the alarm bells over his fascism in particular. >> >> >> https://solidarity-us.org/atc/186/p4859/ >> >> > >> >> > That website could be valid, but I don't recognize any of the >> > authors, >> >> > which is a huge red flag. And the article you cited contains a >> > table >> >> > that proves my point, although that was unintended by the > author, >> > whose >> >> > intentional deceit is evident from his exclusion of stats from >> > 1984. >> > >> > >> >> How would "stats from 1984" be relevant to the demographics of > 2016 >> >> Trump voters, k0ok? >> > >> > You mustn't have even bothered reading the article yourself, as > the >> > author obviously believes the stats from other election years > > >> We weren't discussing other election years. We were discussing > 2016. Stop >> trying to weasel out of admitting that you were wrong about the > core of >> Trump's support, kooky. Your attempts are transparent and as you > can see >> they don't work on us. > > Are you really unable to read, Nadega? That's funny, I was just about to ask the same thing about you, goalpost-mover. >> >> >> From racist immigration bans? >> >> > >> >> > You think they're racist because that's what you've been >> > brainwashed to >> >> > believe. >> > >> > >> >> No, we think they're racist because they're fucking racist. > Trump >> >> explicitly said he didn't want Muslims and Mexicans in the US, > fer >> >> Chrissake. Weren't you paying attention? >> > >> > >> > You believe what your lying heroes tell you, kelsi. > > >> Who is "kelsi", kook? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that >> alias. > > Fuck you, Nadega. What a cogent and mature argument you have brought to the table! Seems I've got you flustered. <snicker> >> > They're never able to provide direct quotes. > > >> How about this direct quote? "They're bringing drugs, they're >> bringing crime, they're rapists." That was Trump's evaluation of >> Hispanic people during 2016 campaigning, if you'll recall. > > He wasn't referring to Hispanic people, Don't be ridiculous. > His audience knew exactly what he meant. That's the whole idea with racist dogwhistles. Standard Republican procedure since Nixon and the "Southern Strategy". >> See also: > > >> > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comme > nts/588067/ > > TheAtlantic > >> > https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-histo > ry > > Vox > > (nuff said) You fucking imbecile. If the closest thing you have to a cogent rebuttal is schoolyard namecalling, then you might as well just concede to me right now, because I've won. >> >> > All of the things he promised were beneficial for the working >> > class, >> > >> > >> >> How is any of his racism "beneficial for the working class", > koOk? >> > (Much >> >> of the working class is nonwhite, in case you didn't know.) >> > >> > >> > He's not racist. > > >> See above, fucktard. > > > The lie. I see it. Trump is racist. Everyone can fucking see it. Who do you think you are going to fool by lying and claiming otherwise? >> >> How was his trade rhetoric "beneficial for the working >> >> >> > > class"?(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-14/trump-s-chin > >> > a-tariffs-hit-america-s-poor-and-working-class-the-hardest) >> > >> > >> >> > But as I've already noted, the only other choice was Hillary >> >> > Clinton. Whom you voted for, right? Of course you did. >> > >> > >> >> Nadegda voted for Bernie Sanders in her state's primary, IIRC. >> > >> > > Me> > Uh huh. And for Hillary in the general election, no doubt. > > >> It was that or Trump, in a state that was potentially in play. And I >> sure as hell wasn't voting for that racist motherfucker. > > I didn't vote for Trump either. I think I already mentioned that I > almost never voted Republican. But I wasn't about to vote for that > evil bitch. Especially after what they did to Bernie. *I* wasn't about to vote for any candidate other than the Dem nominee, because a vote for anyone else might as well have been a vote for Trump. I'm given to understand that kensi did write-in vote for Sanders, but she was in New York at the time, a dyed-in-the-wool blue state that Clinton predictably won by double digits. No danger of her contributing to a Trump win there. > But I really shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth. I'm > lucky you people are so damn dumb. Keep digging that hole deeper, kooktard. >> >> >> Every nasty thing that has been said about Trump has proven > to >> > be >> >> >> true: that he's a racist, that he's a fascist, that he's a >> > rapist ... >> >> > >> >> > He's none of those. >> > >> > >> >> Wrong: >> > >> > >> >> >> > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comme > >> > nts/588067/ >> > >> > >> >> >> > > https://1069thefox.com/news/030030-poll-most-americans-say-trump-is-rac > >> > ist/ >> > >> > >> >> >> > > https://blog.usejournal.com/donald-trump-is-marching-america-towards-fa > >> > scism-ae50fdd76f85 >> > >> > >> >> >> > > http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/trump-and-the-rhetoric-of-fascis > >> > m.html >> > >> > >> >> >> > > https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2015/07/91447/ivana-trump-rape-allegat > >> > ions-donald-trump >> > >> > >> >> >> > > https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/21/18701098/trump-accuse > >> > rs-sexual-assault-rape-e-jean-carroll >> > >> > You cite articles from known purveyors of propaganda. I've > carefully >> > read such before, trying to find real substance in them (because > I >> > honestly did want to believe what they told us about Trump) but I >> > found nothing but bullshit. However, it's sufficient to fool >> > unthinking morons like you. > > >> Ad hominem argument. Invalid. > > Of course. You're another of those semiliterate buffoons who doesn't > know what "ad hominem" means. How unsurprising. Attacking the messenger rather than the message -- i.e., exactly what you keep doing, between your mudslinging at me, your mudslinging at kensi, and your dismissal unread of evidence that comes by way of publications you don't like (even though they all have spotless records for factual accuracy in their reporting, according to mediabiasfactcheck.) >> You're a typical far-right Trump supporter >> in at least this respect: any source of evidence that Trump is bad > you >> dismiss as "fake news" without trying to understand the underlying >> reasons for being critical of Trump. > > LOL. This is typical. You fake leftists always conclude I'm a > rightist. We're genuine leftists. YOU'RE the fake, as evidenced by your frothing out reams and reams of screed to *defend* *Donald* *Fucking* *Trump*, the far-right fascist who's threatening to turn the United States into the Fourth Fucking Reich. > On the contrary, I very much wanted to believe the dirt on > Trump. But I was bright enough to see through the lies. So you claim, but I don't believe you. >> > If you'd like, kelsi, I can refer you to leftist publications > that >> > are much closer to genuine than the tripe you read (although > you've >> > proven you don't really read them anuway). > > >> Fox and Breitbart? Hehehehe, yeah right. She'd sooner read Vogon > poetry, >> I expect. I know I would. > > Did you even see the word "leftist" in what I posted? Clearly a typo on your part, since you obviously meant pro-Trump media, and that means hard right. > Well, maybe you did, but you're so stupid you don't know what it > means. That wouldn't surprise me at all. > > You're a True Believer, Nadega. No different from the lying christers > we encounter in a.a. And just as stupid. You *dare* to compare me with the religious nuts? > Let me guess. You think I'm committing an ad hom fallacy, right? > LMAO. :-) You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook award nomination or two thrown in for good measure. <snicker> -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-25 20:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cneqak.u9t.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #118322 |
. vetoed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 01:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.6267061901260234120@us.news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #118322 |
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 03:01:10 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:08:34 -0500, Ted wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:03:09 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda > > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > > melt! > >> On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:51:55 -0500, Ted wrote: > > > > > >> > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 06:28:43 +0200, kensi > >> > <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> >> On 11/24/2019 6:56 PM, Ted wrote: > >> >> > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 14:28:18 -0500, Ted wrote: > >> >> >> > <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 11/23/2019 9:26 PM, Ted wrote: > >> >> >> >>> The working class who tipped the scales to elect Trump. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Wrong: > >> >> >> > >> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its- > >> >> >> > > time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/ > >> >> > > >> >> > Who owns WaPo? > >> > > >> > > >> >> Relevance? > > > > > >> <crickets> > > > > Sorry. Publications like WaPo, NYT, etc. are gonna sing the tunes of > > their owners, in this case anti-Trump propaganda. If you were > > following along, you know what I mean. > Are you kidding? Those guys *love* Trump, or at least they love his giant > tax cuts for billionaires. That's why their criticism of him is so tepid, > with no sounding the alarm bells over his fascism in particular. That's an interesting pov. > >> >> >> https://solidarity-us.org/atc/186/p4859/ > >> >> > > >> >> > That website could be valid, but I don't recognize any of the > >> > authors, > >> >> > which is a huge red flag. And the article you cited contains a > >> > table > >> >> > that proves my point, although that was unintended by the > > author, > >> > whose > >> >> > intentional deceit is evident from his exclusion of stats from > >> > 1984. > >> > > >> > > >> >> How would "stats from 1984" be relevant to the demographics of > > 2016 > >> >> Trump voters, k0ok? > >> > > >> > You mustn't have even bothered reading the article yourself, as > > the > >> > author obviously believes the stats from other election years > > > > > >> We weren't discussing other election years. We were discussing > > 2016. Stop > >> trying to weasel out of admitting that you were wrong about the > > core of > >> Trump's support, kooky. Your attempts are transparent and as you > > can see > >> they don't work on us. > > > > Are you really unable to read, Nadega? > That's funny, I was just about to ask the same thing about you, > goalpost-mover. Please point out where I moved a goalpost. > >> >> >> From racist immigration bans? > >> >> > > >> >> > You think they're racist because that's what you've been > >> > brainwashed to > >> >> > believe. > >> > > >> > > >> >> No, we think they're racist because they're fucking racist. > > Trump > >> >> explicitly said he didn't want Muslims and Mexicans in the US, > > fer > >> >> Chrissake. Weren't you paying attention? > >> > > >> > > >> > You believe what your lying heroes tell you, kelsi. > > > > > >> Who is "kelsi", kook? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that > >> alias. > > > > Fuck you, Nadega. > What a cogent and mature argument you have brought to the table! In fact, there is a subtle argument included in my response. > Seems I've got you flustered. In your fantasy. > <snicker> > >> > They're never able to provide direct quotes. > > > > > >> How about this direct quote? "They're bringing drugs, they're > >> bringing crime, they're rapists." That was Trump's evaluation of > >> Hispanic people during 2016 campaigning, if you'll recall. > > > > He wasn't referring to Hispanic people, > Don't be ridiculous. You uncritically swallow lies. > > His audience knew exactly what he meant. > That's the whole idea with racist dogwhistles. Standard Republican > procedure since Nixon and the "Southern Strategy". Another silly lie you've been told. > >> See also: > > > > > >> > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comme > > nts/588067/ > > > > TheAtlantic > > > >> > > https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-histo > > ry > > > > Vox > > > > (nuff said) You fucking imbecile. > If the closest thing you have to a cogent rebuttal is schoolyard namecalling, > then you might as well just concede to me right now, because I've won. Again, you miss my point. I did take the time to read one of your cites only to learn subsequently that you never bothered reading it yourself. > >> >> > All of the things he promised were beneficial for the working > >> > class, > >> > > >> > > >> >> How is any of his racism "beneficial for the working class", > > koOk? > >> > (Much > >> >> of the working class is nonwhite, in case you didn't know.) > >> > > >> > > >> > He's not racist. > > > > > >> See above, fucktard. > > > > > > The lie. I see it. > Trump is racist. Everyone can fucking see it. Who do you think you are > going to fool by lying and claiming otherwise? You believe lies. > >> >> How was his trade rhetoric "beneficial for the working > >> >> > >> > > > class"?(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-14/trump-s-chin > > > >> > a-tariffs-hit-america-s-poor-and-working-class-the-hardest) > >> > > >> > > >> >> > But as I've already noted, the only other choice was Hillary > >> >> > Clinton. Whom you voted for, right? Of course you did. > >> > > >> > > >> >> Nadegda voted for Bernie Sanders in her state's primary, IIRC. > >> > > >> > > > Me> > Uh huh. And for Hillary in the general election, no doubt. > > > > > >> It was that or Trump, in a state that was potentially in play. And I > >> sure as hell wasn't voting for that racist motherfucker. > > > > I didn't vote for Trump either. I think I already mentioned that I > > almost never voted Republican. But I wasn't about to vote for that > > evil bitch. Especially after what they did to Bernie. > *I* wasn't about to vote for any candidate other than the Dem nominee, > because a vote for anyone else might as well have been a vote for Trump. > I'm given to understand that kensi did write-in vote for Sanders, but > she was in New York at the time, a dyed-in-the-wool blue state that > Clinton predictably won by double digits. No danger of her contributing > to a Trump win there. It's what you should have done. > > But I really shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth. I'm > > lucky you people are so damn dumb. > Keep digging that hole deeper, kooktard. What do you mean? > >> >> >> Every nasty thing that has been said about Trump has proven > > to > >> > be > >> >> >> true: that he's a racist, that he's a fascist, that he's a > >> > rapist ... > >> >> > > >> >> > He's none of those. > >> > > >> > > >> >> Wrong: > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comme > > > >> > nts/588067/ > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > https://1069thefox.com/news/030030-poll-most-americans-say-trump-is-rac > > > >> > ist/ > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > https://blog.usejournal.com/donald-trump-is-marching-america-towards-fa > > > >> > scism-ae50fdd76f85 > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/trump-and-the-rhetoric-of-fascis > > > >> > m.html > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2015/07/91447/ivana-trump-rape-allegat > > > >> > ions-donald-trump > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/21/18701098/trump-accuse > > > >> > rs-sexual-assault-rape-e-jean-carroll > >> > > >> > You cite articles from known purveyors of propaganda. I've > > carefully > >> > read such before, trying to find real substance in them (because > > I > >> > honestly did want to believe what they told us about Trump) but I > >> > found nothing but bullshit. However, it's sufficient to fool > >> > unthinking morons like you. > > > > > >> Ad hominem argument. Invalid. > > > > Of course. You're another of those semiliterate buffoons who doesn't > > know what "ad hominem" means. How unsurprising. > Attacking the messenger rather than the message -- i.e., exactly what > you keep doing, between your mudslinging at me, your mudslinging at > kensi, Please point out where I did that. > and your dismissal unread of evidence that comes by way of > publications you don't like You've already proved you don't read them yourself. I did politely read one of your cites. How much time do you think I should waste on them. > (even though they all have spotless records > for factual accuracy in their reporting, according to mediabiasfactcheck.) You're such a chump. > >> You're a typical far-right Trump supporter > >> in at least this respect: any source of evidence that Trump is bad > > you > >> dismiss as "fake news" without trying to understand the underlying > >> reasons for being critical of Trump. > > > > LOL. This is typical. You fake leftists always conclude I'm a > > rightist. > We're genuine leftists. YOU'RE the fake, as evidenced by your frothing > out reams and reams of screed to *defend* *Donald* *Fucking* *Trump*, > the far-right fascist who's threatening to turn the United States into > the Fourth Fucking Reich. I'm impressed. > > On the contrary, I very much wanted to believe the dirt on > > Trump. But I was bright enough to see through the lies. > So you claim, but I don't believe you. I've told you nothing but the truth. But liars typically assume others must be liars too. > >> > If you'd like, kelsi, I can refer you to leftist publications > > that > >> > are much closer to genuine than the tripe you read (although > > you've > >> > proven you don't really read them anuway). > > > > > >> Fox and Breitbart? Hehehehe, yeah right. She'd sooner read Vogon > > poetry, > >> I expect. I know I would. > > > > Did you even see the word "leftist" in what I posted? > Clearly a typo on your part, since you obviously meant pro-Trump media, > and that means hard right. Of course. > > Well, maybe you did, but you're so stupid you don't know what it > > means. That wouldn't surprise me at all. > > > > You're a True Believer, Nadega. No different from the lying christers > > we encounter in a.a. And just as stupid. > You *dare* to compare me with the religious nuts? You're exactly the same. They've just swallowed a different dogma, that's all. Otherwise the psychology is identical. > > Let me guess. You think I'm committing an ad hom fallacy, right? > > LMAO. :-) > You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score > accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook award > nomination or two thrown in for good measure. Please point out my fallacies. > <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 10:45 +0200 |
| Subject | NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books |
| Message-ID | <qriont$1t4g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #118325 |
On 11/26/2019 1:40 AM, Ted wrote: > You uncritically swallow lies. This ... from a Trump supporter! *irony meter explodes* > It's what you should have done. No-one should have voted for Twitler. >> and your dismissal unread of evidence that comes by way of >> publications you don't like > > You've already proved you don't read them yourself. Proof, ko0k? > I've told you nothing but the truth. So, you're saying you're a dupe, not a fascist? > But liars typically assume others must be liars too. And you've been assuming repeatedly that Nadegda is a liar. So what does that make you? >> You *dare* to compare me with the religious nuts? > > You're exactly the same. They've just swallowed a different dogma, > that's all. Otherwise the psychology is identical. Nadegda is one of the least dogmatic people I know, kOOk. But you've gone and guzzled all the conspiracy theories and now you can't think straight. >> You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score >> accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook award >> nomination or two thrown in for good measure. I'll get the ball rolling. NOMINATION: "Ted" for November 2019's Looney Maroon Award, for being some combination of clueless and dishonest about Trump, and for having, and *persisting* in despite evidence, the laughably wrong belief that Trump isn't racist, in particular. > Please point out my fallacies. Here are some of your recent fallacies: <almarsoft.6267061901260234120@us.news.astraweb.com> <almarsoft.5635524360805219695@us.news.astraweb.com> <almarsoft.8603697033386220770@us.news.astraweb.com> <almarsoft.7485605589082362199@us.news.astraweb.com> <almarsoft.3189849209943434423@us.news.astraweb.com> <almarsoft.8289265782278847824@us.news.astraweb.com> ... *snicker* -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 09:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books |
| Message-ID | <qriqhu$rbo$3@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #118327 |
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:45:47 +0200, kensi wrote: > On 11/26/2019 1:40 AM, Ted wrote: An attribution is missing here, but the threading indicates it was a post by Nadegda: >>> You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score >>> accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook award >>> nomination or two thrown in for good measure. > > I'll get the ball rolling. > > NOMINATION: "Ted" for November 2019's Looney Maroon Award, for being > some combination of clueless and dishonest about Trump, and for having, > and *persisting* in despite evidence, the laughably wrong belief that > Trump isn't racist, in particular. Nomination accepted. Does anyone wish to second it and give Janithor some competition? -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 22:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books |
| Message-ID | <qrk88k$rfo$30@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #118328 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:16:46 +0000, Libtard wrote: > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:45:47 +0200, kensi wrote: > >> On 11/26/2019 1:40 AM, Ted wrote: > > An attribution is missing here, but the threading indicates it was a post > by Nadegda: > >>>> You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score >>>> accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook award >>>> nomination or two thrown in for good measure. >> >> I'll get the ball rolling. >> >> NOMINATION: "Ted" for November 2019's Looney Maroon Award, for being >> some combination of clueless and dishonest about Trump, and for having, >> and *persisting* in despite evidence, the laughably wrong belief that >> Trump isn't racist, in particular. > > Nomination accepted. Does anyone wish to second it and give Janithor > some competition? Absolutely. -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-27 08:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books |
| Message-ID | <qrlc17$gu1$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #118347 |
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:16:52 +0000, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:16:46 +0000, Libtard wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:45:47 +0200, kensi wrote: >> >>> On 11/26/2019 1:40 AM, Ted wrote: >> >> An attribution is missing here, but the threading indicates it was a >> post by Nadegda: >> >>>>> You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score >>>>> accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook award >>>>> nomination or two thrown in for good measure. >>> >>> I'll get the ball rolling. >>> >>> NOMINATION: "Ted" for November 2019's Looney Maroon Award, for being >>> some combination of clueless and dishonest about Trump, and for >>> having, >>> and *persisting* in despite evidence, the laughably wrong belief that >>> Trump isn't racist, in particular. >> >> Nomination accepted. Does anyone wish to second it and give Janithor >> some competition? > > Absolutely. Second accepted. "Ted" will be on the ballot come December, vying for the Looney Maroon Award with Janithor. May the best kook win and hail Fluffy! -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 08:10 -0500 |
| Subject | NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.5042544069020253602@us.news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #118327 |
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:45:47 +0200, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: > On 11/26/2019 1:40 AM, Ted wrote: > > You uncritically swallow lies. > This ... from a Trump supporter! > *irony meter explodes* What makes me a Trump supporter? Because I point out the lies you sheep blindly accept? > > It's what you should have done. > No-one should have voted for Twitler. > >> and your dismissal unread of evidence that comes by way of > >> publications you don't like > > > > You've already proved you don't read them yourself. > Proof, ko0k? I've already pointed it out twice, but you've already demonstrated (repeatedly) your inability to read so it shouldn't surprise me that you missed it. Okay, third time: When I referenced flaws in the author's argument, you assumed it was my argument, proving you didn't have even the first clue what he wrote. > > I've told you nothing but the truth. > So, you're saying you're a dupe, not a fascist? I certainly am. I too believed much of their bullshit prior to 2016. I'd never wanted to pay any attention to politics, holding only the axiom "Dems good, Rethugs bad" until 2016-17 made me realize I'd been a dupe. > > But liars typically assume others must be liars too. > And you've been assuming repeatedly that Nadegda is a liar. So what does > that make you? I've told you willfully blind unthinking morons the truth. You've consistently responded to it with personal insults instead of argument and then accused me of commiting ad hom. Btw, I too have an irony meter. (Yours needs to be recalibrated.) > >> You *dare* to compare me with the religious nuts? > > > > You're exactly the same. They've just swallowed a different dogma, > > that's all. Otherwise the psychology is identical. > Nadegda is one of the least dogmatic people I know, kOOk. LOL! > But you've > gone and guzzled all the conspiracy theories and now you can't think > straight. I don't know any conspiracy theories. Oh, except the one you believed for three years about Trump's collusion with Russia. > >> You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score > >> accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook award > >> nomination or two thrown in for good measure. > I'll get the ball rolling. > NOMINATION: "Ted" for November 2019's Looney Maroon Award, for being > some combination of clueless and dishonest about Trump, and for having, > and *persisting* in despite evidence, the laughably wrong belief that > Trump isn't racist, in particular. Wrong group, kuntsi. Post your petition to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. There are plenty of libtards there who call me a rightist and as many rightards who call me a leftist. I'm certain they'll mostly all agree with you. > > Please point out my fallacies. > Here are some of your recent fallacies: > <almarsoft.6267061901260234120@us.news.astraweb.com> > <almarsoft.5635524360805219695@us.news.astraweb.com> > <almarsoft.8603697033386220770@us.news.astraweb.com> > <almarsoft.7485605589082362199@us.news.astraweb.com> > <almarsoft.3189849209943434423@us.news.astraweb.com> > <almarsoft.8289265782278847824@us.news.astraweb.com> You deliberately make them cumbersome to follow because you know they don't support your accusation. We have a nutcase in a.a. who does the same thing. If I really committed any fallacies, you'd quote them instead. > ... > *snicker* Ignore, lie, evade, and then declare victory. If you hadn't already repeatedly assured me that I'm the kook in this discussion, I'd conclude from your behavior that the label applies to you instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 11:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books |
| Message-ID | <cnggom.p2j.19.5@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #118329 |
On 2019-11-26 6:10 a.m., Ted wrote: > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:45:47 +0200, kensi > <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/26/2019 1:40 AM, Ted wrote: >> > You uncritically swallow lies. > > >> This ... from a Trump supporter! > > >> *irony meter explodes* > > > What makes me a Trump supporter? Because I point out the lies you sheep > blindly accept? > > >> > It's what you should have done. > > >> No-one should have voted for Twitler. > > >> >> and your dismissal unread of evidence that comes by way of >> >> publications you don't like >> > > You've already proved you don't read them yourself. > > >> Proof, ko0k? > > > I've already pointed it out twice, but you've already demonstrated > (repeatedly) your inability to read so it shouldn't surprise me that you > missed it. Okay, third time: When I referenced flaws in the author's > argument, you assumed it was my argument, proving you didn't have even > the first clue what he wrote. > > >> > I've told you nothing but the truth. > > >> So, you're saying you're a dupe, not a fascist? > > > I certainly am. I too believed much of their bullshit prior to 2016. I'd > never wanted to pay any attention to politics, holding only the axiom > "Dems good, Rethugs bad" until 2016-17 made me realize I'd been a dupe. > > >> > But liars typically assume others must be liars too. > > >> And you've been assuming repeatedly that Nadegda is a liar. So what > does >> that make you? > > I've told you willfully blind unthinking morons the truth. You've > consistently responded to it with personal insults instead of argument > and then accused me of commiting ad hom. Btw, I too have an irony meter. > (Yours needs to be recalibrated.) > >> >> You *dare* to compare me with the religious nuts? >> > > You're exactly the same. They've just swallowed a different > dogma, >> > that's all. Otherwise the psychology is identical. > > >> Nadegda is one of the least dogmatic people I know, kOOk. > > LOL! >> But you've gone and guzzled all the conspiracy theories and now you can't > think >> straight. > > I don't know any conspiracy theories. Oh, except the one you believed > for three years about Trump's collusion with Russia. > >> >> You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score >> >> accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook > award >> >> nomination or two thrown in for good measure. > > >> I'll get the ball rolling. > > >> NOMINATION: "Ted" for November 2019's Looney Maroon Award, for > being >> some combination of clueless and dishonest about Trump, and for > having, >> and *persisting* in despite evidence, the laughably wrong belief > that >> Trump isn't racist, in particular. > > Wrong group, kuntsi. Post your petition to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. There > are plenty of libtards there who call me a rightist and as many > rightards who call me a leftist. I'm certain they'll mostly all agree > with you. > >> > Please point out my fallacies. > > >> Here are some of your recent fallacies: > > >> <almarsoft.6267061901260234120@us.news.astraweb.com> >> <almarsoft.5635524360805219695@us.news.astraweb.com> >> <almarsoft.8603697033386220770@us.news.astraweb.com> >> <almarsoft.7485605589082362199@us.news.astraweb.com> >> <almarsoft.3189849209943434423@us.news.astraweb.com> >> <almarsoft.8289265782278847824@us.news.astraweb.com> > > You deliberately make them cumbersome to follow because you know they > don't support your accusation. We have a nutcase in a.a. who does the > same thing. If I really committed any fallacies, you'd quote them instead. > >> ... > > >> *snicker* > > > Ignore, lie, evade, and then declare victory. If you hadn't already > repeatedly assured me that I'm the kook in this discussion, I'd conclude > from your behavior that the label applies to you instead. never listen to anything ted says , he's from the atheist group
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 10:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books |
| Message-ID | <cngi7a.9q2.17.28@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #118329 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate. On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:10:57 -0500 Ted put forth the following notion, which was duly noted and recorded: > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:45:47 +0200, kensi > <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: > > On 11/26/2019 1:40 AM, Ted wrote: > > > You uncritically swallow lies. > > > > This ... from a Trump supporter! > > > > *irony meter explodes* > > > What makes me a Trump supporter? Because I point out the lies you > sheep blindly accept? > > > > > It's what you should have done. > > > > No-one should have voted for Twitler. > > > > >> and your dismissal unread of evidence that comes by way of > > >> publications you don't like > > > > > > You've already proved you don't read them yourself. > > > > Proof, ko0k? > > > I've already pointed it out twice, but you've already demonstrated > (repeatedly) your inability to read so it shouldn't surprise me that > you missed it. Okay, third time: When I referenced flaws in the > author's argument, you assumed it was my argument, proving you didn't > have even the first clue what he wrote. > > > > > I've told you nothing but the truth. > > > > So, you're saying you're a dupe, not a fascist? > > > I certainly am. I too believed much of their bullshit prior to 2016. > I'd never wanted to pay any attention to politics, holding only the > axiom "Dems good, Rethugs bad" until 2016-17 made me realize I'd been > a dupe. > > > > > But liars typically assume others must be liars too. > > > > And you've been assuming repeatedly that Nadegda is a liar. So what > does > > that make you? > > I've told you willfully blind unthinking morons the truth. You've > consistently responded to it with personal insults instead of > argument and then accused me of commiting ad hom. Btw, I too have an > irony meter. (Yours needs to be recalibrated.) > > > >> You *dare* to compare me with the religious nuts? > > > > > > You're exactly the same. They've just swallowed a different > dogma, > > > that's all. Otherwise the psychology is identical. > > > > Nadegda is one of the least dogmatic people I know, kOOk. > > LOL! > > > But you've > > gone and guzzled all the conspiracy theories and now you can't > think > > straight. > > I don't know any conspiracy theories. Oh, except the one you believed > for three years about Trump's collusion with Russia. > > > >> You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score > > >> accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook > award > > >> nomination or two thrown in for good measure. > > > > I'll get the ball rolling. > > > > NOMINATION: "Ted" for November 2019's Looney Maroon Award, for > being > > some combination of clueless and dishonest about Trump, and for > having, > > and *persisting* in despite evidence, the laughably wrong belief > that > > Trump isn't racist, in particular. > > Wrong group, kuntsi. Post your petition to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. > There are plenty of libtards there who call me a rightist and as many > rightards who call me a leftist. I'm certain they'll mostly all agree > with you. > > > > Please point out my fallacies. > > > > Here are some of your recent fallacies: > > > > <almarsoft.6267061901260234120@us.news.astraweb.com> > > <almarsoft.5635524360805219695@us.news.astraweb.com> > > <almarsoft.8603697033386220770@us.news.astraweb.com> > > <almarsoft.7485605589082362199@us.news.astraweb.com> > > <almarsoft.3189849209943434423@us.news.astraweb.com> > > <almarsoft.8289265782278847824@us.news.astraweb.com> > > You deliberately make them cumbersome to follow because you know they > don't support your accusation. We have a nutcase in a.a. who does the > same thing. If I really committed any fallacies, you'd quote them > instead. > > > ... > > > > *snicker* > > > Ignore, lie, evade, and then declare victory. If you hadn't already > repeatedly assured me that I'm the kook in this discussion, I'd > conclude from your behavior that the label applies to you instead. See what I mean? I warned you about these two KooKtards. They've been proudly displaying their stupidity here for years. Both are perfect examples of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. -- Checkmate ® Copyright © 2019 all rights reserved https://youtu.be/wT-8Dm1VThc *************************************************** "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me> *************************************************** AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore) Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll) Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012 Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 12:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books |
| Message-ID | <cngik9.ss7.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #118342 |
On 2019-11-26 11:59 a.m., Checkmate wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate. > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:10:57 -0500 Ted put forth the following notion, > which was duly noted and recorded: > > >> >> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:45:47 +0200, kensi >> <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> On 11/26/2019 1:40 AM, Ted wrote: >>>> You uncritically swallow lies. >> >> >>> This ... from a Trump supporter! >> >> >>> *irony meter explodes* >> >> >> What makes me a Trump supporter? Because I point out the lies you >> sheep blindly accept? >> >> >>>> It's what you should have done. >> >> >>> No-one should have voted for Twitler. >> >> >>>>> and your dismissal unread of evidence that comes by way of >>>>> publications you don't like >>>> >>>> You've already proved you don't read them yourself. >> >> >>> Proof, ko0k? >> >> >> I've already pointed it out twice, but you've already demonstrated >> (repeatedly) your inability to read so it shouldn't surprise me that >> you missed it. Okay, third time: When I referenced flaws in the >> author's argument, you assumed it was my argument, proving you didn't >> have even the first clue what he wrote. >> >> >>>> I've told you nothing but the truth. >> >> >>> So, you're saying you're a dupe, not a fascist? >> >> >> I certainly am. I too believed much of their bullshit prior to 2016. >> I'd never wanted to pay any attention to politics, holding only the >> axiom "Dems good, Rethugs bad" until 2016-17 made me realize I'd been >> a dupe. >> >> >>>> But liars typically assume others must be liars too. >> >> >>> And you've been assuming repeatedly that Nadegda is a liar. So what >> does >>> that make you? >> >> I've told you willfully blind unthinking morons the truth. You've >> consistently responded to it with personal insults instead of >> argument and then accused me of commiting ad hom. Btw, I too have an >> irony meter. (Yours needs to be recalibrated.) >> >>>>> You *dare* to compare me with the religious nuts? >>>> >>>> You're exactly the same. They've just swallowed a different >> dogma, >>>> that's all. Otherwise the psychology is identical. >> >> >>> Nadegda is one of the least dogmatic people I know, kOOk. >> >> LOL! >> >>> But you've >>> gone and guzzled all the conspiracy theories and now you can't >> think >>> straight. >> >> I don't know any conspiracy theories. Oh, except the one you believed >> for three years about Trump's collusion with Russia. >> >>>>> You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score >>>>> accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook >> award >>>>> nomination or two thrown in for good measure. >> >> >>> I'll get the ball rolling. >> >> >>> NOMINATION: "Ted" for November 2019's Looney Maroon Award, for >> being >>> some combination of clueless and dishonest about Trump, and for >> having, >>> and *persisting* in despite evidence, the laughably wrong belief >> that >>> Trump isn't racist, in particular. >> >> Wrong group, kuntsi. Post your petition to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. >> There are plenty of libtards there who call me a rightist and as many >> rightards who call me a leftist. I'm certain they'll mostly all agree >> with you. >> >>>> Please point out my fallacies. >> >> >>> Here are some of your recent fallacies: >> >> >>> <almarsoft.6267061901260234120@us.news.astraweb.com> >>> <almarsoft.5635524360805219695@us.news.astraweb.com> >>> <almarsoft.8603697033386220770@us.news.astraweb.com> >>> <almarsoft.7485605589082362199@us.news.astraweb.com> >>> <almarsoft.3189849209943434423@us.news.astraweb.com> >>> <almarsoft.8289265782278847824@us.news.astraweb.com> >> >> You deliberately make them cumbersome to follow because you know they >> don't support your accusation. We have a nutcase in a.a. who does the >> same thing. If I really committed any fallacies, you'd quote them >> instead. >> >>> ... >> >> >>> *snicker* >> >> >> Ignore, lie, evade, and then declare victory. If you hadn't already >> repeatedly assured me that I'm the kook in this discussion, I'd >> conclude from your behavior that the label applies to you instead. > > See what I mean? I warned you about these two KooKtards. They've been > proudly displaying their stupidity here for years. Both are perfect > examples of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. > i warned everyone about ted
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-11-26 15:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NOMINATION Re: My Husband's Books |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.6978201399129025103@us.news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #118342 |
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:59:09 -0800, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate. > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:10:57 -0500 Ted put forth the following notion, > which was duly noted and recorded: > > > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:45:47 +0200, kensi > > <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > On 11/26/2019 1:40 AM, Ted wrote: > > > > You uncritically swallow lies. > > > > > > > This ... from a Trump supporter! > > > > > > > *irony meter explodes* > > > > > > What makes me a Trump supporter? Because I point out the lies you > > sheep blindly accept? > > > > > > > > It's what you should have done. > > > > > > > No-one should have voted for Twitler. > > > > > > > >> and your dismissal unread of evidence that comes by way of > > > >> publications you don't like > > > > > > > > You've already proved you don't read them yourself. > > > > > > > Proof, ko0k? > > > > > > I've already pointed it out twice, but you've already demonstrated > > (repeatedly) your inability to read so it shouldn't surprise me that > > you missed it. Okay, third time: When I referenced flaws in the > > author's argument, you assumed it was my argument, proving you didn't > > have even the first clue what he wrote. > > > > > > > > I've told you nothing but the truth. > > > > > > > So, you're saying you're a dupe, not a fascist? > > > > > > I certainly am. I too believed much of their bullshit prior to 2016. > > I'd never wanted to pay any attention to politics, holding only the > > axiom "Dems good, Rethugs bad" until 2016-17 made me realize I'd been > > a dupe. > > > > > > > > But liars typically assume others must be liars too. > > > > > > > And you've been assuming repeatedly that Nadegda is a liar. So what > > does > > > that make you? > > > > I've told you willfully blind unthinking morons the truth. You've > > consistently responded to it with personal insults instead of > > argument and then accused me of commiting ad hom. Btw, I too have an > > irony meter. (Yours needs to be recalibrated.) > > > > > >> You *dare* to compare me with the religious nuts? > > > > > > > > You're exactly the same. They've just swallowed a different > > dogma, > > > > that's all. Otherwise the psychology is identical. > > > > > > > Nadegda is one of the least dogmatic people I know, kOOk. > > > > LOL! > > > > > But you've > > > gone and guzzled all the conspiracy theories and now you can't > > think > > > straight. > > > > I don't know any conspiracy theories. Oh, except the one you believed > > for three years about Trump's collusion with Russia. > > > > > >> You've committed so *many* fallacies it's difficult to keep score > > > >> accurately. Let me get back to you on that. Maybe with a kook > > award > > > >> nomination or two thrown in for good measure. > > > > > > > I'll get the ball rolling. > > > > > > > NOMINATION: "Ted" for November 2019's Looney Maroon Award, for > > being > > > some combination of clueless and dishonest about Trump, and for > > having, > > > and *persisting* in despite evidence, the laughably wrong belief > > that > > > Trump isn't racist, in particular. > > > > Wrong group, kuntsi. Post your petition to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. > > There are plenty of libtards there who call me a rightist and as many > > rightards who call me a leftist. I'm certain they'll mostly all agree > > with you. > > > > > > Please point out my fallacies. > > > > > > > Here are some of your recent fallacies: > > > > > > > <almarsoft.6267061901260234120@us.news.astraweb.com> > > > <almarsoft.5635524360805219695@us.news.astraweb.com> > > > <almarsoft.8603697033386220770@us.news.astraweb.com> > > > <almarsoft.7485605589082362199@us.news.astraweb.com> > > > <almarsoft.3189849209943434423@us.news.astraweb.com> > > > <almarsoft.8289265782278847824@us.news.astraweb.com> > > > > You deliberately make them cumbersome to follow because you know they > > don't support your accusation. We have a nutcase in a.a. who does the > > same thing. If I really committed any fallacies, you'd quote them > > instead. > > > > > ... > > > > > > > *snicker* > > > > > > Ignore, lie, evade, and then declare victory. If you hadn't already > > repeatedly assured me that I'm the kook in this discussion, I'd > > conclude from your behavior that the label applies to you instead. > See what I mean? I warned you about these two KooKtards. They've been > proudly displaying their stupidity here for years. Both are perfect > examples of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Good call, you were spot on. I'll admit, I hadn't expected them to be so morally deficient. But they're entertaining.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | edm.general
csiph-web