Democrats: "Get money out of politics!"

[murox]

Beto O'Rourke raised nearly $40M in the last 3 months, and over $61M total for his hapless bit to oust Ted Cruz. Cruz will win by double digits. Imagine how much healthcare $61M could buy for sick illegal immigrant children. But guess what tastes better than healing sick children: power.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/pol...ree-months-smashing-records-bid-oust-ted-cruz

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The title of the thread is more than a bit misleading. When Democrats (or anyone logical) say to get money out of politics, they don't mean at an individual level. They are talking about corporations and political action committees. Nobody is saying that Jim Bob Cooter from Huntington shouldn't be able to give $25 to help a politicians' campaign.

And that's the thing with Beto. He raised that money from over 800,000 donors. It averages out to less than $50/person. None of it is from a PAC.

But why am I not surprised that the self-proclaimed "social liberal" is against one of the most socially liberal politicians out there and is supporting a politician who claims that he makes his political decisions based on what his god tells him to do.

Oh, and for the lack of logic behind the crux of the post . . .

It has far more impact to change the root of the problem instead of simply putting a band-aid on an issue that will continue to get ripped off of the wound.

 

[murox]

The title of the thread is more than a bit misleading. When Democrats (or anyone logical) say to get money out of politics, they don't mean at an individual level. They are talking about corporations and political action committees. Nobody is saying that Jim Bob Cooter from Huntington shouldn't be able to give $25 to help a politicians' campaign.

And that's the thing with Beto. He raised that money from over 800,000 donors. It averages out to less than $50/person. None of it is from a PAC.

But why am I not surprised that the self-proclaimed "social liberal" is against one of the most socially liberal politicians out there and is supporting a politician who claims that he makes his political decisions based on what his god tells him to do.

Oh, and for the lack of logic behind the crux of the post . . .

It has far more impact to change the root of the problem instead of simply putting a band-aid on an issue that will continue to get ripped off of the wound.

Yeah, like most of your claims, that’s not true at all. The overwhelming majority of Beto’s contributors in 2016 came from large individual donations, not $50 donations from 800k people. Now that he’s on the national stage, money is pouring in from all over the country (even the world) to help the Democrats bid to win the senate.

https://www.politifact.com/texas/st...rourke-claims-near-uniqueness-not-taking-cor/

Give Taylor and Drake my best tomorrow night after your pro bono charity coaching gig.

 

[ohio herd]

They sure don't know how to pick a winner

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/tx/texas_senate_cruz_vs_orourke-6310.html

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Yeah, like most of your claims, that’s not true at all.

What part isn't even remotely true? Everything I said was entirely accurate.

The overwhelming majority of Beto’s contributors in 2016 came from large individual donations, not $50 donations from 800k people.

How stupid can you truly be? Your original comment and your original post mentioned the amount Beto has raised in the last quarter. I responded to that, still talking about the amount he has raised in the last quarter, by stating that amount of money was raised by about 800,000 which averages out to less than $50/person.

Yet, the self-proclaimed social liberal said that isn't true? Your argument is that the "overwhelming majority of Beto's contributors in 2016 . . . " Who the fvck is talking about 2016, moron? I clearly was talking about the last quarter, as not only was that what you mentioned, but it is also the time period the 800,000 donors I mentioned happened to give money to the campaign.

not true at all. The overwhelming majority of Beto’s contributors in 2016 came from large individual donations, not $50 donations from 800k people.
.

Do you know how averages work? By saying that the average for that quarter was lower than $50/person, it doesn't mean that somebody may not have given more than $50.

My god. You try so hard to find anything incorrect that I say that it continues to make you look dumber than usual.

Give Taylor and Drake my best tomorrow night after your pro bono charity coaching gig.

Oh, so you're still running and hiding from your previous claims that you know are false, huh? I asked you some very simple to answer questions, so that I could continue to prove your other allegations wrong (besides the ones I already did), and you hide from them.

 

[big_country90]

Yeah rifle...all those average, ordinary people just trying to get through life and wishing for change, chipping in their gas money to help Beto help them.

To murox's point, instead of Hollywood and all the militant leftists nationwide throwing money toward this losing effort, why not establish a fund to directly pay for healthcare for those who need it?

 

[i am herdman]

Rox is up in this game 42 to 14 and it is not halftime yet.

 

[ohio herd]

Rox is up in this game 42 to 14 and it is not halftime yet.

Yep I think Yaggs needs to tap out.

 

[countryroads89]

How in the hell could anyone like Ted Cruz?

That guy is a worthless coward. He’s like the offspring of Mr. Haney from Green Acres and Ernest Angley.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Rox is up in this game 42 to 14 and it is not halftime yet.

Yep I think Yaggs needs to tap out.

Yeah, he had to change the discussion to talk about contributions in 2016, claimed I was wrong with my numbers, and you morons jump on the bandwagon.

Yeah rifle...all those average, ordinary people just trying to get through life and wishing for change, chipping in their gas money to help Beto help them.

Do the math, moron. Over 800,000 donors. $38 million. Yes, that means a lot of ordinary people are giving low amounts of money.

To murox's point, instead of Hollywood and all the militant leftists nationwide throwing money toward this losing effort, why not establish a fund to directly pay for healthcare for those who need it?

I thought that I dumbed it down enough the first time. Guess not. I'll try again:

Throwing that money to help put a temporary fix on an issue will only result in that money needing to be raised again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Taking out the root of the problem (politicians like Rafael Cruz) is a far better strategy than continuing to put a band-aid on the issue.

Hell, even Rafael agree with this line of thinking. He led a government shutdown for more than two week that left thousands of government employees without pay and cost the country tens of billions of dollars. Instead of helping to shut the government down and instead of wasting ten of billions, why not use that money to help cover costs associated with Obamacare? Same logic you and Murox are wanting. Well, Rafael and his ilk knew that the exposure of the shutdown would put holes in the Obamacare shield and potentially help to get rid of it in the future (instead of needing billions to continue helping with the costs associated with it for citizens).

See how that works?

 

[19MU88]

Rox is up in this game 42 to 14 and it is not halftime yet.

I wonder if he will get bored kicking that ass. At least he isn’t tag teaming with thundercat—that was an ugly beat down on our resident D3 coach music producer message board warrior

 

[Chevy1]

Is getting money out of politics a bad thing? the Dem pushing that notion was Bernie Sanders.....not Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton. the power hungry will always sell their souls for a buck.

 

[i am herdman]

Is getting money out of politics a bad thing? the Dem pushing that notion was Bernie Sanders.....not Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton. the power hungry will always sell their souls for a buck.

Bernie cashed in.

 

[murox]

Yeah, he had to change the discussion to talk about contributions in 2016, claimed I was wrong with my numbers, and you morons jump on the bandwagon.



Do the math, moron. Over 800,000 donors. $38 million. Yes, that means a lot of ordinary people are giving low amounts of money.



I thought that I dumbed it down enough the first time. Guess not. I'll try again:

Throwing that money to help put a temporary fix on an issue will only result in that money needing to be raised again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Taking out the root of the problem (politicians like Rafael Cruz) is a far better strategy than continuing to put a band-aid on the issue.

Hell, even Rafael agree with this line of thinking. He led a government shutdown for more than two week that left thousands of government employees without pay and cost the country tens of billions of dollars. Instead of helping to shut the government down and instead of wasting ten of billions, why not use that money to help cover costs associated with Obamacare? Same logic you and Murox are wanting. Well, Rafael and his ilk knew that the exposure of the shutdown would put holes in the Obamacare shield and potentially help to get rid of it in the future (instead of needing billions to continue helping with the costs associated with it for citizens).

See how that works?

rifle is the new greed, only more persistent. It's not even worth continuing a discussion with him because he will never own a mistake or admit he was wrong, and he will respond with a 50,000 word response that no one even reads. It's exhausting.

As for Beto, his money is pouring in from all over the country, not from 800k Texans. If he is so popular there, he'd at least be competitive with Cruz. He's going to get waxed because Texans aren't emasculated social justice warriors.

The charity football coach is currently brokering a deal between Adele and Jay Z and will respond as soon as he's free (which is all the time, because he doesn't answer to anyone*).

*Except his offensive coordinator, head coach, athletic director and every executive member of his university, who are all wondering: "How did we get this rich guy to let us use his condo?" "Was that Ed Sheeren's helicopter that picked him up at midfield after the game?" And "did you see all his 'ice' and designer bags?"

 

[i am herdman]

rifle is the new greed, only more persistent. It's not even worth continuing a discussion with him because he will never own a mistake or admit he was wrong, and he will respond with a 50,000 word response that no one even reads. It's exhausting.

As for Beto, his money is pouring in from all over the country, not from 800k Texans. If he is so popular there, he'd at least be competitive with Cruz. He's going to get waxed because Texans aren't emasculated social justice warriors.

The charity football coach is currently brokering a deal between Adele and Jay Z and will respond as soon as he's free (which is all the time, because he doesn't answer to anyone*).

*Except his offensive coordinator, head coach, athletic director and every executive member of his university, who are all wondering: "How did we get this rich guy to let us use his condo?" "Was that Ed Sheeren's helicopter that picked him up at midfield after the game?" And "did you see all his 'ice' and designer bags?"

Taylor Swift saved her cherry for him.

 

[extragreen]

rifle is the new greed

Do you have any human family members you'd like to trade for my neighbors dog?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

rifle is the new greed, only more persistent. It's not even worth continuing a discussion with him because he will never own a mistake or admit he was wrong, and he will respond with a 50,000 word response that no one even reads. It's exhausting.

Are you truly this dumb or just out of your mind? I said absolutely nothing incorrect in this thread. You made a post. I corrected you on a misleading statement.

I then said that of the money you mentioned, it was raised from over 800,000 donors which amounts to less than $50/person.

You then claimed that I was wrong with my comment. There was absolutely nothing I said that was wrong. When asked to explain what you claimed I was wrong about, you mentioned something unrelated (Beto's 2016 donations) to anything we were talking about.

Now, you've gone off claiming I am still wrong. What the fvck have I said that is incorrect in this thread? You made the claim and then when asked to back it up, you mention something totally unrelated.

As for Beto, his money is pouring in from all over the country, not from 800k Texans.

And nobody claimed otherwise, moron. Quit using fvcking straw men to justify your bogus claim.

(which is all the time, because he doesn't answer to anyone*).

*Except his offensive coordinator, head coach, athletic director and every executive member of his university

Another straw man. You said that if I am not coaching anywhere, I still have a boss, because you insist that I just have to be working and just have to have a boss. Of course, I've given you two very easy ways to prove to yourself how wrong you are, but you coward out just like with the other claims you made that you've hidden from.

and he will respond with a 50,000 word response that no one even reads. It's exhausting.

You read every word, because you are enamored with me. So you should have said "a nobody" reads it, not "nobody." Now, you hid from the three very simple questions I asked you in the other thread multiple times, because you didn't want to exposed wrong again, so are you going to do it in this thread, too?

You claimed I was wrong win my first post. What was incorrect in it?

 

[From Ashes To Glory 2]

The title of the thread is more than a bit misleading. When Democrats (or anyone logical) say to get money out of politics, they don't mean at an individual level. They are talking about corporations and political action committees. Nobody is saying that Jim Bob Cooter from Huntington shouldn't be able to give $25 to help a politicians' campaign.

And that's the thing with Beto. He raised that money from over 800,000 donors. It averages out to less than $50/person. None of it is from a PAC.

But why am I not surprised that the self-proclaimed "social liberal" is against one of the most socially liberal politicians out there and is supporting a politician who claims that he makes his political decisions based on what his god tells him to do.

Oh, and for the lack of logic behind the crux of the post . . .

It has far more impact to change the root of the problem instead of simply putting a band-aid on an issue that will continue to get ripped off of the wound.

Rifle is absolutely correct. See also Citizens United.

 

[murox]

Are you truly this dumb or just out of your mind? I said absolutely nothing incorrect in this thread. You made a post. I corrected you on a misleading statement.

I then said that of the money you mentioned, it was raised from over 800,000 donors which amounts to less than $50/person.

You then claimed that I was wrong with my comment. There was absolutely nothing I said that was wrong. When asked to explain what you claimed I was wrong about, you mentioned something unrelated (Beto's 2016 donations) to anything we were talking about.

Now, you've gone off claiming I am still wrong. What the fvck have I said that is incorrect in this thread? You made the claim and then when asked to back it up, you mention something totally unrelated.



And nobody claimed otherwise, moron. Quit using fvcking straw men to justify your bogus claim.



Another straw man. You said that if I am not coaching anywhere, I still have a boss, because you insist that I just have to be working and just have to have a boss. Of course, I've given you two very easy ways to prove to yourself how wrong you are, but you coward out just like with the other claims you made that you've hidden from.



You read every word, because you are enamored with me. So you should have said "a nobody" reads it, not "nobody." Now, you hid from the three very simple questions I asked you in the other thread multiple times, because you didn't want to exposed wrong again, so are you going to do it in this thread, too?

You claimed I was wrong win my first post. What was incorrect in it?

There was nothing misleading about the subject line. Democrats are always crying to "get money out of politics!" Your argument is since its coming from 800k people (allegedly; Beto has proven to be liberal with the facts) it's ok. I posted his 2016 contribution data because it is pertinent to the conversation. His donations aren't coming from small donors -- they're coming from large donors from everywhere. Now that he's the left's new "rising star," his record fundraising is pouring in from major democrat donors all over the country. You're kidding yourself if you think this is a groundswell of ordinary folks giving $50 each. It's Hollywood and Soros-connected millionaires.

 

[Bankerreturns]

Good call on rifle morphing into Extra. Spot on.

 

[mlblack16.]

There was nothing misleading about the subject line. Democrats are always crying to "get money out of politics!" Your argument is since its coming from 800k people (allegedly; Beto has proven to be liberal with the facts) it's ok. I posted his 2016 contribution data because it is pertinent to the conversation. His donations aren't coming from small donors -- they're coming from large donors from everywhere. Now that he's the left's new "rising star," his record fundraising is pouring in from major democrat donors all over the country. You're kidding yourself if you think this is a groundswell of ordinary folks giving $50 each. It's Hollywood and Soros-connected millionaires.

If the Dems would stop with these nutjob SJW's and Antifa, they would start to draw people back in to their party, and they wouldn't have to keep upping the game on funding campaigns. But they are too full of themselves and their neurotic insistence that, if you disagree with them, they will do whatever it takes to annihilate you. Their tired ass rally cry (started by The Racist In Chief - Obama) that if you disagree with their ideologies, then you are a blatant racist has died, but they haven't figured that out yet.

Instead, they continue to call anyone who isn't 100% in absolute agreement with them deplorables, racists, uneducated, and/or whatever other insults they can think of to hurl in the way of their opposition.

If Rifle is so wealthy, and has so much free time on his hands, he should help his fellow Democrats by donating just a small portion of his immense wealth to campaigns and use some of his celebrity star power to help these candidates win. Instead, like his father Greed, Rifle just complains about what everyone else needs to do without lifting a finger himself to actually help facilitate change.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

There was nothing misleading about the subject line. Democrats are always crying to "get money out of politics!" Your argument is since its coming from 800k people (allegedly; Beto has proven to be liberal with the facts) it's ok.

Your own fvcking source in your very opening post was the one that made the 800,000 claim, and you didn't seem to have a problem with it. Now, you're claiming that the 800,000 number is false, therefore my info is false, and you have absolutely no source/proof/argument of the 800,000 number being false?

Get the fvck out of here. You claimed that I was wrong about something which I wasn't even remotely incorrect about. Even if your info about his 2016 contributions happened to be accurate, it has absolutely nothing to do with what YOUR OWN SOURCE AND OPENING POST was discussing - his donations in the last quarter.

It doesn't matter how much is coming from large, individual donors. If a certain amount is donated by a certain number of people, that means the average is still the same. Clearly, you don't know how averages work, and that is what you claimed I was wrong about.

You fvcked up again; you claimed I was wrong about something in which I clearly wasn't; own it and stop trying to change the argument.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

If Rifle is so wealthy, and has so much free time on his hands, he should help his fellow Democrats by donating just a small portion of his immense wealth to campaigns
.

I never claimed that I am "so wealthy." What I have claimed, for many years now, is that I can never work again and still lead a very comfortable life. And I have shown that by not having worked many years since I have made that comment.

You realize that a single guy who has a home free of a mortgage can live quite comfortably for 30+ years without having millions in a bank, right?

and use some of his celebrity star power to help these candidates win.

That's been happening for the last 4+ months, before Beto was ever mentioned on here. A simple search on here will show you that Beto was never mentioned until mid-July, a discussion in which I was one of two people talking him about. As you can see, these texts and emails started two weeks before then.

But, yeah, when you are given Beto's direct cell and he reaches out to ask where you are and tells you where he is so you can link up, it's a pretty good sign that he is aware that you can be a big help:

 

[murox]

Your own fvcking source in your very opening post was the one that made the 800,000 claim, and you didn't seem to have a problem with it. Now, you're claiming that the 800,000 number is false, therefore my info is false, and you have absolutely no source/proof/argument of the 800,000 number being false?

Get the fvck out of here. You claimed that I was wrong about something which I wasn't even remotely incorrect about. Even if your info about his 2016 contributions happened to be accurate, it has absolutely nothing to do with what YOUR OWN SOURCE AND OPENING POST was discussing - his donations in the last quarter.

It doesn't matter how much is coming from large, individual donors. If a certain amount is donated by a certain number of people, that means the average is still the same. Clearly, you don't know how averages work, and that is what you claimed I was wrong about.

You fvcked up again; you claimed I was wrong about something in which I clearly wasn't; own it and stop trying to change the argument.

Who is arguing about averages? This thread is about the record amount of money pouring into Beto's campaign from wealthy liberals across the country. Somehow it's ok when the rich finance democrats' campaigns, but when republicans out finance dems, it's time to get money out of politics.

YOU were the one who built a straw man and have been arguing against it since your first reply. You tried to imply this was a groundswell of ordinary people financing Beto's campaign when it's not. The 2016 numbers reflect this, which is why I referenced them. The last quarter donors aren't available yet, so we can't look at them. Jesus. This is why I hate even engaging with you. You're the new greed. It's pointless, leads to nowhere and is exhausting.

 

[murox]

I never claimed that I am "so wealthy." What I have claimed, for many years now, is that I can never work again and still lead a very comfortable life. And I have shown that by not having worked many years since I have made that comment.

You realize that a single guy who has a home free of a mortgage can live quite comfortably for 30+ years without having millions in a bank, right?



That's been happening for the last 4+ months, before Beto was ever mentioned on here. A simple search on here will show you that Beto was never mentioned until mid-July, a discussion in which I was one of two people talking him about. As you can see, these texts and emails started two weeks before then.

But, yeah, when you are given Beto's direct cell and he reaches out to ask where you are and tells you where he is so you can link up, it's a pretty good sign that he is aware that you can be a big help:

Does anyone know what these screen shots are supposed to prove? It's like the loch ness monster video with Tom Green all over again.

Can you take more pics of items you've recently purchased (preferably with the tags still on them so we know you can buy a $3000 shirt on a whim and not even care enough to wear it)? Or maybe tell us about how a stripped-down E 300 is going to have you drowning in pvssy?

 

[ThunderCat98]

You fvcked up again; you claimed I was wrong about something in which I clearly wasn't; own it and stop trying to change the argument.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

This thread is about the record amount of money pouring into Beto's campaign from wealthy liberals across the country.

And the statistics and your own source simply don't support that. Are wealthy libs donating? Of course. But look at the numbers: over $38 million. Over 800,000 donors. Lets assume that there are 1000 "ultra-wealthy" donors giving to Beto. That still means over 800,000 commoners. What do you think the average contribution is from one of those hundreds of thousands of commoners? I think it's safe to assume that the average contribution from a commoner is at least $20. So at the bare minimum, lets go with $20 as the average for those 800,000 donors who aren't wealthy and giving big money.

$20 x 800,000 = $16 million. In other words, even at the very lowest, nearly half of the contributions are coming from commoners and not wealthy libs from around the country like you claim.

Somehow it's ok when the rich finance democrats' campaigns, but when republicans out finance dems, it's time to get money out of politics.

I've already explained how you're wrong on that. When people complain about money in politics, they aren't talking about an individual contributing to a campaign. They are talking about lobbyists, PACs, companies, and having individual limits. You can keep trying this argument, but it rings hollow when you're exposed for being ignorant about what you're talking about.

YOU were the one who built a straw man and have been arguing against it since your first reply. You tried to imply this was a groundswell of ordinary people financing Beto's campaign when it's not.

It is exactly that! The numbers prove it. Again, what do you think the average donation amount is for the commoner contributing to Beto. Answer that simple question.

Do you realize there are limits an individual can give? I believe it is $2500 or $2700.

The numbers simply don't support your claim.

The 2016 numbers reflect this, which is why I referenced them.

Jesus, this is the epitome of a simple-thinking, ignorant commoner. Beto's 2016 numbers were for running as a rep from district 16. Beto's last quarter numbers were for running to be one of two U.S. Senators from the state of Texas. You do realize that senators have far more power, far more influence, and receive far more contributions than house of rep campaigners, right? And it isn't even close.

In 2016, the overwhelming majority of Texans (or Americans) had no idea who Beto O'Rourke was. During the last quarter, the majority of Texas are well aware of who he is. Hell, you can't drive a mile down any street in any town, big or small, without seeing numerous Beto signs.

Beto is not only receiving far more money since he is running for a senate seat compared with a house of rep spot, but he is also receiving a lot more due to so many people knowing who he is now.

Let me dumb this down for you:

In 2018, there are 37 different House of Rep races going on in Texas consisting of 260 candidates. The total campaign contributions for all of those amounts to $78 million. That comes out to $2.1 million per race and $300,000 per candidate.

In 2018, there is 1 U.S. Senate race going on in Texas consisting of 10 candidates (now 2). The total for all 10 was $41 million (as of the last calculation, which clearly has gone up). Of that $41 million, all except for $150,000 was for Beto or Rafael Cruz. In other words, the average U.S. House of Reps candidate in Texas gets $300,000 while the average U.S. Senate candidate in Texas gets $20 million (and that number is far higher now).

In other words, Senate candidates have a much bigger profile which is why Beto's numbers, both in terms of money and donors, has skyrocketed.

https://www.followthemoney.org/tools/election-overview?s=TX&y=2018

Trying to use Beto's 2016 numbers as a good measure of his 2018 numbers is as stupid as any argument this board has seen in a while. Nobody knew who Beto was in 2016. You can't miss him in 2018 regardless of where in the state you live.

The last quarter donors aren't available yet, so we can't look at them.

Sure we can. Remember, your opening post claimed that over 800,000 donors contributed to Beto within the last three months (that's a quarter if you don't have a calculator handy). As we both know, the average (at a bare minimum) for the commoner is at least $20. Do the math with that and those 800,000 donors.

Now, for what you have continued to avoid . . . in the third post in this thread, you quoted my entire post (the second post in this thread) and said it wasn't true. What did I say in my first post in this thread (second post overall) that was incorrect? It's a very simply question. Copy-and-paste what I said that you claimed was wrong. You won't, because we both know it was entirely accurate.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Yeah rifle...all those average, ordinary people just trying to get through life and wishing for change, chipping in their gas money to help Beto help them.

They very well might be.

I get texts from both parties asking for donations, asking for five or ten bucks. Back in the days of mail-only fundraising they asked for more. It's a good tactic, fives and tens add up quick.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Does anyone know what these screen shots are supposed to prove? It's like the loch ness monster video with Tom Green all over again.
?

I'll dumb this down for you, also. The other poster said I should use my alleged influence/relationships/wealth to help. I showed that a mutual friend gave me Beto's direct number which Beto said to pass onto me. The subject of the email reads "Beto." Then, the same phone number showed in the email is texting me telling me where he is and what he is wearing so that I can find him. I can also provide emails showing addresses from his campaign manager, him, and others in his campaign emailing me (not generic "donate now" emails, but actual emails trying to coordinate with me).

And your attempt with the Tom Green thing is pathetically bad. I showed a picture of a girl and Tom Green standing with me. I then showed a video that doesn't show my face, but shows that same exact girl, Tom Green, and a guy with the same exact outfit on as the guy (me) in the picture. It doesn't take a bright insurance salesman to add 1+1.

Or maybe tell us about how a stripped-down E 300 is going to have you drowning in pvssy?

It was the Maserati that I said would lead to easy pussy, not the E class. But it would take more than a life-long West Virginia education to be able to comprehend what you read.

 

[murox]

Oh, this is great. Can I get a definition for "commoner," Mr. D3 Football Position Coach?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Still hiding from the plethora of very easy questions I have asked over the last week?

It's bad when what I say is accurate and truthful, and your attempts are all fabrications.

Let me know when you want to start answering those basic questions. It's obvious why you keep hiding from them.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Beto said to pass onto me.

The correct term or phrase is "on to." Shit. Only a moron (italicized just for you), commoner such as yourself would make such an egregious grammatical error.

 

[ARandomHerdFan]

In this post I plan to cite some of Riflearm's more topical crimes and let you, the reader, decide for yourself how to react. Here, I deviate from the standard formula of coddling the usual victims and lionizing the usual heroes to point out that when I was growing up, we were taught that one should always try to provide a trenchant analysis of Riflearm's litanies. Nowadays, it seems that more and more kids are being taught that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of maledicent stereotypes. You can thank Riflearm for this baleful pedagogical viewpoint, especially given that he has been telling people that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. This story has been uncritically swallowed and regurgitated by many half-informed, anal-retentive Zendiks who find pleasure in believing it. No, I can't explain it either. However, I can say that Riflearm knows how to lie. It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.

Prejudices are what dissolute adolescents use for reason. But let's not quibble about that. Far from taking us forward, Riflearm's loquacious philippics actually keep us anchored in the past. Unless we prevent his imprudent smears from spreading like a malignant tumor, the denizens of the future will never know that if Riflearm truly wanted to be helpful, he wouldn't convince the populace to abandon the rigors of democracy for the seductions of tyranny. This makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of his socially inept attitudes. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) I'd like to end this letter with a message for Riflearm. I'd like to say with emphasis and distinctness—not as a threat, but as a warning—that I will do whatever it takes to hone in on his faults with laser-like precision, and I won't let him stop me from achieving that goal.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The correct term or phrase is "on to." Shit.
.

No. I very well could have meant "onto" in that he asked for to to be passed up to me.

Only a moron (italicized just for you), commoner such as yourself would make such an egregious grammatical error.

You should have said "moronic commoner" instead of "moron, commoner."

Do tier three attorneys get legal assistants for when they struggle with basic grammar?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

This is typical Murox. When he posts bullshit and gets called out on it, he simply changes the argument and posts even more bullshit to make the other person defend yet more positions.

So we will take this one bullshit comment of his at a time. He claims that the point of his post was to show some sort of hypocrisy about Dems wanting money out of politics unless a Democratic politician has raised a lot of money.

My argument is that Murox's understanding of "get money out of politics" is magnificently flawed at the most basic level. Dems calling for "money out of politics" doesn't mean every politician should stand on street corners yelling their platform with no media coverage, no ads, etc. Those calling for "money out of politics" are referring to lobbyists, PACs, businesses, individual limits, etc.

Now, either refute that argument or admit that your original argument was flawed at its core.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

[QUOTE="ARandomHerdFan, post: 569924, member: 296"

This story has been uncritically swallowed and regurgitated by many half-informed, anal-retentive Zendiks who find pleasure in believing it.
[/QUOTE]

Swallowed, anal, and pleasure all in the same sentence. God, I miss my grandmother's Christmas cards.

 

[mlblack16.]

I never claimed that I am "so wealthy." What I have claimed, for many years now, is that I can never work again and still lead a very comfortable life. And I have shown that by not having worked many years since I have made that comment.

You realize that a single guy who has a home free of a mortgage can live quite comfortably for 30+ years without having millions in a bank, right?



That's been happening for the last 4+ months, before Beto was ever mentioned on here. A simple search on here will show you that Beto was never mentioned until mid-July, a discussion in which I was one of two people talking him about. As you can see, these texts and emails started two weeks before then.

But, yeah, when you are given Beto's direct cell and he reaches out to ask where you are and tells you where he is so you can link up, it's a pretty good sign that he is aware that you can be a big help:

None of your iPhone screenshots mean shit to me. There's tons of apps which can create spoof SMS, MMS and emails to then screenshot.

http://www.crunchytricks.com/2016/04/iphone-fake-text-generator-tools.html?m=1

To date, the only "proof" we've seen so far is a grainy ass pic of you standing with a group of others, who were all posing with Mya, and then the pics of you in the audience of a really old DWTS episode. The rest of the stuff you posted were hilarious, because no one on here could even come close to spotting you.

 

[ThunderCat98]

No. I very well could have meant "onto" in that he asked for to to be passed up to me.

That is a f*cking lie, and incorrect in any event. "Onto" is a preposition meaning on the surface of. "On to" means onwards or towards something. If it's being passed to you, the correct form is "on to."

 

[ThunderCat98]

[QUOTE="ARandomHerdFan, post: 569924, member: 296"

This story has been uncritically swallowed and regurgitated by many half-informed, anal-retentive Zendiks who find pleasure in believing it.

Someone doesn't know how to use the quote function.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

None of your iPhone screenshots mean shit to me. There's tons of apps which can create spoof SMS, MMS and emails to then screenshot.

http://www.crunchytricks.com/2016/04/iphone-fake-text-generator-tools.html?m=1

Nice. Let me try it:

Well, they aren't working. But they have some differences with the wireless signal status being dots instead of bars, not being able to do messages on both sides instead of just one, and the shade of blue being noticeably different than what iPhones show.

The rest of the stuff you posted were hilarious, because no one on here could even come close to spotting you.

Was hilarious, not were hilarious. You and Murox could save some money by using the same tutor to teach you both about was vs. were.

I also posted a picture with Tom Green and a girl. Then, I showed a video of that same girl with Tom Green and of a guy (whose face you couldn't see) who had the same exact outfit on as I did in the picture. You're too stupid to understand that though. And if you froze the Mya video, you would have seen me twice at the door being asked by both Mya and her publicist (who both were in the picture) if I was riding with them. It's pretty easy to hit the pause button on the video.

Oh, by the way, moron . . . there are dozen people on here who are friends with me on Facebook and/or Instagram. They all can see hundreds of pictures of me with artists, so you questioning that those weren't of me makes you look dumber than you usually do.

It also wasn't a picture from a DWTS "episode." It was pictures of at least 3-4 episodes, all in the front row, because I was flying out there every week for three months straight.

That is a f*cking lie,

This is why I constantly mock you for being Tier Three. How is something that wasn't claimed a lie? I didn't say that was what I meant. I said I "COULD" have meant that which would have made it proper usage. You just aren't a very bright guy.

"Onto" is a preposition meaning on the surface of. "On to" means onwards or towards something. If it's being passed to you, the correct form is "on to."

Wrong. He could have wanted something passed up and onto me . . . literally, onto me.

Someone doesn't know how to use the quote function.

I'd be so embarrassed about constantly getting exposed as being Tier Three that I, too, would resort to attempts as pathetic as this.