TakeYouToTasker

I think you know how to claim to be something you're not on the internet. Stolen valor.

If he doesn't know what AQ is, I'm beginning to doubt his service record. Might be a case of stolen valor.

... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ... Thanks for that. OH! But hey! While I have you here: Explain: - How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position. - How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position. - How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position. - How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position. - How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position. Once you're done with that, explain how as these things failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued. Any updates on this?

To be fair, you're talking to people who believe the purpose of the Court is to be stacked for the interests of politics in order to circumvent the law.

Exactly correct.

41-3 Ravens

I took a picture of the game day menu:

If this is true, why did the court reject the warrant at least twice before the introduction of the dossier, why was the dossier never able to be substantiated, why was Page surveilled as a direct Russian agent, why were normal procedures bypassed in favor of skipping American citizens only protections of their 4th Amendment rights? And, I'll ask a second time, what does anything that you posted have to do with the fact that the former President of the United States signed off on warrant to proceed with spying on US citizens, because they were his political enemies, without even so much as a hearing in a secret court?

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the former President of the United States signed off on warrant to proceed with spying on US citizens, because they were his political enemies, without even so much as a hearing in a secret court?

You've used logical fallacies and outright lies in order to link myself, Greg, and others to outspoken anti-Semites for the purpose of discrediting. You haven't once engaged with the actual material presented, but have instead opted to paint the material as no different than 9/11 trutherism or Zionist flat Earth theory. You aren't an honest person. You don't deserve to be treated any better than you have been. In fact, you probably deserve worse. I'll offer you the exact same deal I did in another thread: Repose the questions you say haven't been answered. I'll link directly to the posts that answer your questions. You'll admit that you're a liar, and you'll leave the board forever. Deal?

Oh, good grief. Spare me your faux-indignation. You're a willful hack, and a purposeful sham; and your own actions mark you as a person of low character. I could give a rat's ass how polite you are when you act with intellectual dishonesty: a bad actor is still a bad actor even if he's soft spoken while he acts. If you want courtesy, start being a better poster; and stop being a saboteur of truth.

You wouldn't know because you haven't read the source material, so anything you have to say on the subject is invalid. You're a sham of a poster, and a person of low character.

To be fair, President Obama didn't fight that much for ISIS as a Senator. Most of his work on their direct behalf came from the Oval.

Wow...

Any updates on whether you made an economic decision or not?

Perhaps if you included a link?

Has it been announced? I thought you were just speculating in the other thread.

I'm thinking Cindy McCain.

Very nice sir. Congrats.

Would you say that you've made an economic decision?

... Would you say that you've made an economic decision?

How are you enjoying the boat?

What a truly awful way to behave. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would welcome an intellectual critique of the information provided. You haven't done that.