Acorn - We Have No Shame

Taichiliberal said:
No stupid, the Wall Street Journal (hardly a "liberal" newspaper) brought it up....YOU were ignorant of the facts, as usual. You're beef is with them and the DC Fire Dept., not me... You're such a coward, Southie. I provide proof and YOU doubt the source. So I give you the tools to either validate or refute your declared doubt. It is YOU that is calling the DC Fire Dept and the Wall St. Journal liars, not me.

Laugh, clown, laugh.
Click to expand...
So now its the Wall Street Journal's fault for you bringing it up in our conversation, but not yours. LOL

Typical liberal, never willing to take personal responsibility.

Let me clue you in on the rules of debate. You cite a source, then you own it. I've asked you for details about your source, specially the science behind your claim that the DC TEA crowd was only 75,000 some odd people, and all you can provide is the same quote from a spokesman all of four words long. Yet I provide a report detailing a scientific estimate showing the number was about 22 times larger.

And you call me "willfully ignorant". How ironic.
 
Southern Man said:
So now its the Wall Street Journal's fault for you bringing it up in our conversation, but not yours. LOL

Learn to READ chucklehead.....the WSJ is not at "fault" for anything....they are the source of information that YOU dispute. YOU are questioning the WSJ story AND the D.C. Fire Dept. regarding the 9/12 teabagger head count, not me. Once again, you demonstrate either an inability to comprehend what you read

Typical liberal, never willing to take personal responsibility. Southie, I am beginning to believe that you are either truly stupid or delusional, because the recorded chronology of the posts just don't support your drivel....anyone with an 8th grade reading level can see that.

Let me clue you in on the rules of debate. YOU!??! :rofl:You cite a source, then you own it. No, you are using that source to verify your statment, claim or assertion. If someone does not agree with the source, it's up to that person to logically and factually fault or disprove it. So far, you've failed to meet that criteria. I've asked you for details about your source, No, you made a generalized statement "where's the science?" The WSJ article pointed to the D.C. Fire Dept. and explained that NO ONE ELSE does what they do regarding crowd assessment. specially the science behind your claim that the DC TEA crowd was only 75,000 some odd people, and all you can provide is the same quote from a spokesman all of four words long. A lie on your part....I NEVER claimed that number, the D.C. Fire Dept. gave that number...which is much less than the one you put forth. Yet I provide a report detailing a scientific estimate showing the number was about 22 times larger. Another lie....I asked you where's your science, and have not seen any link. I do note that you REFUSE to contact the D.C. Fire Dept. directly to ask or challenge their assessment. I wonder why, if you are so sure of your "science".

And you call me "willfully ignorant". Which you proved by refusing to go to the DC site...YOU are the one challenging the DC Fire Dept. assessment, chucklehead. Not me. How ironic.
Click to expand...
That you continually demonstrate that which you allege of others? Yep, pretty much. Carry on.
 
Southern Man said:
Nice emotional rant, but I'm still waiting for you to cite the science behind your assertion of only 75,000 TEA marchers.
Click to expand...

There you go folks....our insipidly stubborn and willfully ignorant neocon parrot just keeps squawking SOS. over, and over and over. [ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=528674&postcount=102"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Acorn - We Have No Shame[/ame]
 
Southern Man said:
The "recorded chronology of the post" shows that you have provided no scientific basis of your assertion. Zero zip nada.
Click to expand...

Let me clue you in on the rules of debate. YOU!??! :rofl: You cite a source, then you own it. No, you are using that source to verify your statment, claim or assertion. If someone does not agree with the source, it's up to that person to logically and factually fault or disprove it. So far, you've failed to meet that criteria. I've asked you for details about your source, No, you made a generalized statement "where's the science?" The WSJ article pointed to the D.C. Fire Dept. and explained that NO ONE ELSE does what they do regarding crowd assessment. specially the science behind your claim that the DC TEA crowd was only 75,000 some odd people, and all you can provide is the same quote from a spokesman all of four words long. A lie on your part....I NEVER claimed that number, the D.C. Fire Dept. gave that number...which is much less than the one you put forth. Yet I provide a report detailing a scientific estimate showing the number was about 22 times larger. Another lie....I asked you where's your science, and have not seen any link. I do note that you REFUSE to contact the D.C. Fire Dept. directly to ask or challenge their assessment. I wonder why, if you are so sure of your "science".
 
Taichiliberal said:
Let me clue you in on the rules of debate. YOU!??! :rofl: You cite a source, then you own it. No, you are using that source to verify your statment, claim or assertion. If someone does not agree with the source, it's up to that person to logically and factually fault or disprove it. So far, you've failed to meet that criteria. I've asked you for details about your source, No, you made a generalized statement "where's the science?" The WSJ article pointed to the D.C. Fire Dept. and explained that NO ONE ELSE does what they do regarding crowd assessment. specially the science behind your claim that the DC TEA crowd was only 75,000 some odd people, and all you can provide is the same quote from a spokesman all of four words long. A lie on your part....I NEVER claimed that number, the D.C. Fire Dept. gave that number...which is much less than the one you put forth. Yet I provide a report detailing a scientific estimate showing the number was about 22 times larger. Another lie....I asked you where's your science, and have not seen any link. I do note that you REFUSE to contact the D.C. Fire Dept. directly to ask or challenge their assessment. I wonder why, if you are so sure of your "science".
Click to expand...

No reason to have a hissy fit. My assertion is that there were 1.7 million at that event, and that is based on science. You assertion is that there were about 75,000, and you have no science to back that up.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Let me clue you in on the rules of debate. YOU!??! :rofl: You cite a source, then you own it. No, you are using that source to verify your statment, claim or assertion. If someone does not agree with the source, it's up to that person to logically and factually fault or disprove it. So far, you've failed to meet that criteria. I've asked you for details about your source, No, you made a generalized statement "where's the science?" The WSJ article pointed to the D.C. Fire Dept. and explained that NO ONE ELSE does what they do regarding crowd assessment. specially the science behind your claim that the DC TEA crowd was only 75,000 some odd people, and all you can provide is the same quote from a spokesman all of four words long. A lie on your part....I NEVER claimed that number, the D.C. Fire Dept. gave that number...which is much less than the one you put forth. Yet I provide a report detailing a scientific estimate showing the number was about 22 times larger. Another lie....I asked you where's your science, and have not seen any link. I do note that you REFUSE to contact the D.C. Fire Dept. directly to ask or challenge their assessment. I wonder why, if you are so sure of your "science".
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
No reason to have a hissy fit. My assertion is that there were 1.7 million at that event, and that is based on science. You assertion is that there were about 75,000, and you have no science to back that up.
Click to expand...

New day....and you're STILL squawking the SOS (and plagiarizing me to boot...really sad on your part). Poor little willfully ignorant neocon parrot....insipidly stubborn until the end.

Where is YOUR science on the 1.7 million? What is YOUR source? To date, YOU haven't produced any validation on this thread for your claim. I provided the valid who behind mine...if you disagree, you argument is with them, not me.

You still have time....grow up and do some honest research. I won't do your homework for you. But you'll just ignore logic and keep repeating yourself to the bitter end. Go ahead, rational adults see your folly. See ya here tomorrow, bunky.
 
Taichiliberal said:
New day....and you're STILL squawking the SOS (and plagiarizing me to boot...really sad on your part). Poor little willfully ignorant neocon parrot....insipidly stubborn until the end.

Where is YOUR science on the 1.7 million? What is YOUR source? To date, YOU haven't produced any validation on this thread for your claim. I provided the valid who behind mine...if you disagree, you argument is with them, not me.

You still have time....grow up and do some honest research. I won't do your homework for you. But you'll just ignore logic and keep repeating yourself to the bitter end. Go ahead, rational adults see your folly. See ya here tomorrow, bunky.
Click to expand...
Have you forgot so soon? [ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=524953&postcount=315"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - 1 Million + Protesters In DC[/ame]
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Debate with TCL = Chinese Water Torture
Click to expand...
I can't recall him debating even once. As soon as you make a point he declares false victory, calls you a racist, claims that the "record" proves it, tells you that "your done", then say's goodnight to someone named "Gracie". It's really weird.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Translation: I humiliated this dummy on the AOL threads so bad that he just runs behind me spewing sour grapes. He doesn't have the guts, brains or honesty to debate me head on regarding any topic. What a pitiful human being he is.
Click to expand...


Really ?

Most of us see you as an ignorant asshole that spouts the same line of shit over and over and yells "I won, I won".....
In reality you get your ass handed to you, then rant on some crap off topic and claim the other guy is........ what? Guess.................'willfully igonrant'
Call him or her a "neo-con" and thats about it .....every time, without deviation....

Its as sure as day follows night....and it gets boring after a month or two......

You know everybody wants you back at the AOL forum......
.
.
.
.
.

at least, everybody on this forum, that is....
 
Southern Man said:
I can't recall him debating even once. As soon as you make a point he declares false victory, calls you a racist, claims that the "record" proves it, tells you that "your done", then say's goodnight to someone named "Gracie". It's really weird.
Click to expand...

the Loyal End has NEVER debated me here, so how are all his claims valid? If I don't debate, then why are you CONSTANTLY responding to/intiating exchanges with me? Are you insane, stupid or just a liar?
 
bravo said:
Really ? Yep.....he was part of a group of neocon parrots that defended to the death anything and everything that Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld could pull out of their butts and put on a news feed. I kicked his ass SO bad that he refused to debate me...yet takes any and every opportunity to piggy back on some other neocon's post to blow raspberries...much like Tutu Monroe, who aptly acquired the nickname "Blabba" back in the day. Have you EVER seen him debate me directly on anything on these boards? If you have, then please produce that exchange because it will be news to me.

Most of us And to whom do you refer here? What is this group, this coalition of clowns that you and other defeated neocon numbskulls refer to whenever you're whining about how I humiliate you? Come, come Bravo....you're not going to go all grade school "secret society" on me now, are you? Surely you are proud of your compadres? Or are you just full of it as usual? see you as an ignorant asshole that spouts the same line of shit over and over and yells "I won, I won"..... Hmmm, and of course you can supply the readers with a post that demonstrates EXACTLY what you state here. I'm mean, if you can't that would mean you're full of it...and your integrity is beyond reproach, right? :rolleyes:
In reality you get your ass handed to you, then rant on some crap off topic and claim the other guy is........ what? Guess.................'willfully igonrant'
Call him or her a "neo-con" and thats about it .....every time, without deviation.... A fascinating synopsis if reality didn't have a nasty habit of disagreeing with you. As the recorded threads/posts show, you and like minded simpletons seem to think ignoring responses and valid facts while just repeating your assertions in various forms is a type of logical debate. You fail to understand the flaw in your tactics, as you seem not to understand that your opinion, supposition and conjecture are no substitute for facts and logic. You earn the title of "willfully ignorant" because during the course of an exchange you and your bretheren not only admit that you are unaware of facts that I bring forth, but you proudly announce that YOU DON'T CARE and the FACTS are NOT RELEVENT. Now from grade school through college, I don't recall being taught how this mindset of yours is logical, let alone sane. But I guess such thoughts are too much for you. Oh, and "neocon" is short for "new conservative"....look it up, and then maybe you'll understand what is the basis for all of your prattlings. As for me repeating these phrases......don't talk the talk and you won't get the label.

Its as sure as day follows night....and it gets boring after a month or two......

And yet here you are, unprovoked and unnecessary to spew venom at me....either you're obsessed with revenge for the pasting I periodically give you, or you're psychosis has overridden your medication, and you need to consult your psychiatrist ASAP.

You know everybody wants you back at the AOL forum...... See above regarding this "everybody" you refer to..
.
.
.
.

at least, everybody on this forum, that is....
Click to expand...

See above regarding this "everybody" you refer to. Carry on, you intellectually impotent pillar of neocon bravo!
 
Southern Man said:
I find you to be entertaining. :)
Click to expand...

That's about as lame a comeback as you've done in the last few months. You're pretty sad, Southie...sending me a negative reputation note "right back at cha", which is the schoolyard equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?" Pathetic.

You idiots constantly back yourselves into a logical corner and then throw out these lame absurd retorts...vainly trying to cover your folly. The threads/posts prove me right.

On this thread, the only REAL point is to deal with the Acorn business of embezzlement and it's not reporting to the proper authorities. Other than that, any and all Acorn employees caught acting inappropriately have been reported to the proper authorities. NO fake voter registration under Acorn ever went to the polls and voted...period. As for the recent video of the idiots giving shady advice....to date no one has asked the producer of the video (a conservative wonk who specializes in going after liberal organizations) how many people/offices of Acorn he had to visit before he found those idiots.

The real problem that Acorn poses is that it SUCCESSFULLY REGISTERS voters...predominantly poor & minority. This is a threat to the GOP, who traditionally do well with low voter turnout. Karl Rove has been quoted on this. It's simple for the GOP.....discredit Acorn and tie Obama to it beyond his actual involvment.

And the beat goes on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top