2000 Mules

Dr. Spaceman

HR All-American
Jun 22, 2009
4,471
9,108
113
The closed minded troupe has arrived for the day. Guys, there’s coffee in the back. Make yourselves at home.
Adding personal insults to your sh*tty troll game. Someone's gunning for another timeout. Seriously, how pathetic do you have to be to get banned from a message board.
 
Last edited:

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,476
113
Adding personal insults to your sh*tty troll game. Someone's gunning for another timeout. Seriously, how pathetic do you have to be to get banned from a message board.
LOL you’re not good at the internet. How old are you out of curiosity? I’m getting a bit bored with the back and forth.
 

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,476
113
You didn't get a board imposed ban?
Not for trolling. Bullying the bullies is more accurate, and I no longer do what I was banned for. Anyway, I’m not a troll. Just an independent concerned with both sides. Dems are in charge now and they suck! Lied to all of us about a bunch of things.
 

Dr. Spaceman

HR All-American
Jun 22, 2009
4,471
9,108
113
Not for trolling. Bullying the bullies is more accurate, and I no longer do what I was banned for. Anyway, I’m not a troll. Just an independent concerned with both sides. Dems are in charge now and they suck! Lied to all of us about a bunch of things.
Banned from a message board for trolling but totally not a troll and definitely not pathetic.
 

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,476
113
So you're loving on this movie because of it's dramatic qualities rather than it's empirical evidence?
I’m just saying if it’s good enough for the standard of proof in a courtroom (which is high as hell and so am I 😉) then we’re all clear on a film.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
66,678
49,413
113
Was. Not. Banned. For. Trolling.
Troll-Face-Colored.jpg
 

noStemsnoSTICKS

HR All-American
Feb 16, 2006
3,570
2,801
113
Sactown
Well, we’ll see. 1/6 investigation will go on for 10 years. This can as well.
Except that it's been thrown out of literally every courtroom that it's been tried. Do you really believe we'll be litigating the 2020 election 10 years from now? What new evidence do you have? Dude, your boy is 77. He'll be dead by then.
 

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,476
113
Except that it's been thrown out of literally every courtroom that it's been tried. Do you really believe we'll be litigating the 2020 election 10 years from now? What new evidence do you have? Dude, your boy is 77. He'll be dead by then.
My boy? Biden? I don’t think Biden is relevant here. Anyway, no- Dems will hold on for dear life on 1/6 because Dems are a disaster, incapable of leading, and really have pissed people like myself off (independents who reluctantly gave them a vote in 2020 only for disaster to ensue)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,542
113
It's not enough for Probable Cause. U can prove I drive by multiple weed dispensaries every few months. But that isn't enough to go through my bank accounts and my house for weed.
The problem is they did it in one day and multiple times throughout the election. THAT is probable cause. Watch the movie.
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,542
113
Not. One. Word. Of. What. You. Just. Posted. Is. Remotely. On. Point.

You presented that list as comprehensive. You presented their total numbers as fact. I quite literally pick one case and looked at the decision.

Your "list" presented the fiction that there was NO evidence presented in THAT case. That it was decided as a Non-Merit case. Period. End of story. The ruling presents the exact opposite reality. Your list-makers lied about THAT case. Period. End of story. It's like bumping a haystack and three needles pop out. The logical assumption would be that the haystack is full of needles. Explain how they got THAT case 100% wrong. Respond on point this time.

As for your claim that the case doesn't involve allegations of fraud...Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants ignored limits on the availability of mail-in balloting, created ballot dropboxes, did not provide adequate access to poll observers, "eliminated state laws requiring that voters provide information on the mail-in ballot envelope," and permitted election workers to alter ballots. Plaintiff claims that the alleged conduct violates both the Elections and Electors Clauses..

That certainly quacks like a fraud duck.
No, that qualifies as a lawsuit stating procedures to change election laws were not followed. I was discussing cases that were adjudicated on the merits. I did NOT mention fraud was the merit. The website is 100% correct. You're just trying to spin things as usual because your statements consistently get destroyed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
66,678
49,413
113
No, that qualifies as a lawsuit stating procedures to change election laws were not followed. I was discussing cases that were adjudicated on the merits. I did NOT mention fraud was the merit. The website is 100% correct. You're just trying to spin things as usual because your statements consistently get destroyed.
😂 🤣😂🤣You couldn't destroy a wet tissue paper with a baseball bat.😂🤣😂🤣 Not a single word of what you posted changes the fact that your "blog" lied about the case I pulled. They. Lied. Say it with me...They LIED.