Russians WANTED Hillary to win

[popinjay]

you idiots

[Dutch]

popinjay wrote:
> you idiots
>

They had a funny way of showing it.

[popinjay]

That's why I said you're an idiot. Because you're an idiot.

[Dutch]

You've been watching fake news again.

Two of the nation's top counter-intelligence officials stood by the U.S.
intelligence assessment in January that Russian President Vladimir
Putin's government sought to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election.

Under questioning from Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), FBI Director James
Comey and Adm. Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency,
said nothing has changed since they issued their Jan. 6 report on
Russian interference in the election.

The report found that senior Russian officials, including Putin, wanted
to undermine the U.S. democratic process, hurt Democratic nominee
Hillary Clinton and help Trump's campaign.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-comey-stands-by-january-assessment-that-1490026528-htmlstory.html

[popinjay]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 8:09:56 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:



>
> You've been watching fake news again.
>
> Two of the nation's top counter-intelligence officials stood by the U.S.
> intelligence assessment in January that Russian President Vladimir
> Putin's government sought to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election.
>
> Under questioning from Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), FBI Director James
> Comey and Adm. Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency,
> said nothing has changed since they issued their Jan. 6 report on
> Russian interference in the election.
>
> The report found that senior Russian officials, including Putin, wanted
> to undermine the U.S. democratic process, hurt Democratic nominee
> Hillary Clinton and help Trump's campaign.
> http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-comey-stands-by-january-assessment-that-1490026528-htmlstory.html

What fake news says the Russians wanted Hillary, you fucking idiot? They all are saying they wanted Trump. That's one way you know they wanted Hillary. You say *I* have been watching fake news, and then you QUOTE me some fake news. Idiot.

[Dutch]

I meant actual fake news, not "the fake news" that liar Trump refers to
which is in fact the legitimate press.

Glad I could straighten that out for you.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:rQMXA.4321$ht3....@fx25.iad...

I wonder if Popintwat regrets at all having pissed on near every real poker
discussion in the past who even KNOWS how many years. My guess is no --
he'd never admit to having done that, and he doesn't have enough consicence
to feel shame in the first place.

Still, the irony of him boo-hooing his eyes out over people posting all this
horrible OT political anti-T-Rump stuff is simply delicious.

[popinjay]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 9:35:39 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:



>
> I meant actual fake news, not "the fake news" that liar Trump refers to
> which is in fact the legitimate press.
>
> Glad I could straighten that out for you.

You mean the "news" with 100% liberal bias? You mean the "news" that sucked Obama's cock for 8 years plus? You mean the "news" that openly supported Hillary in the election? You mean the "news" that apparently has never heard of George Soros? You mean the "news" that thinks Seth Rich was killed in a robbery?

Why the FUCK wouldn't the Russians want Hillary? She would give the store away. Stupid ass.

[popinjay]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 9:49:01 PM UTC-7, Clave wrote:



>
> I wonder if Popintwat regrets at all having pissed on near every real poker
> discussion in the past who even KNOWS how many years.

You can't show it.

[Dutch]

Who's George Soros?

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:FIPXA.337$JD1...@fx11.iad...

It's Keyser Söze's real name. Ask anyone. Personally kills lots of people
every day, and baby bunnies in his spare time.

[popinjay]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 1:22:54 AM UTC-7, Clave wrote:



> >
> > Who's George Soros?
>
> It's Keyser Söze's real name. Ask anyone. Personally kills lots of people
> every day, and baby bunnies in his spare time.

Clave, speaking of every day, you don't have to try so hard, every day, to remind people of what a piece of shit you are. We remember. You make light of a criminal like George Soros, who apparently has your admiration, while Bitch Bea makes light of the Kathy Griffin thing, and also reminds us of what a piece of shit she is too. But neither of you have to try so hard. You could limit your outlandishness to maybe once or twice a week, why work so hard every day? Take it easy. Relax. We know. You are a piece of shit. Don't worry, no one is going to take your place.

[popinjay]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:52:09 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:



>
> Who's George Soros?

Prove my point. Thx.

[fffurken]

On Thursday, 1 June 2017 09:46:02 UTC+1, popinjay wrote:

> You make light of a criminal like George Soros, who apparently has your admiration

Of course, George Soros is a darling of the far left. Clave is on the far left. Ditto other commie loons like the Canadian dhimmi.

[Robert Ladd]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:FIPXA.337$JD1...@fx11.iad...

1.0 on the troll-o-meter. You aren't very good at this are you?

Robert Ladd

[Dutch]

I was trolling him, obviously I could look it up if I didn't know. You

[Robert Ladd]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:KyZXA.25711$Wm4....@fx44.iad...

Your troll sucked, thus a 1.0. A good troll would contain some
believability to elicit a positive or negative response. From previous
posts it is quite clear you'd have a pretty good idea who George Soros is.

Robert Ladd

[Dutch]

I never said I was good troll. I was just trying to yank his chain.

[VegasJerry]

And you couldn't even do that...

[Dutch]

Actually it worked perfectly.

And be sure to update the group when one of those "Christian terrorist"
attacks happens, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for Islamic terrorist
activity. Care to wager which one of us will be reporting in first?

Does the Manila attack count (36 dead and counting, already more than
triple the total number of victims of abortion clinic attacks in all of
history), or do I need to wait for the next one? Shouldn't be long...
tick tick

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:46:53 PM UTC-7, popinjay wrote:
> you idiots

'During testimony given by then-Director Comey during the March 20 House Intelligence Committee hearing and his subsequent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, Comey's most juicy offering was that that the FBI Intelligence Committee had clearly ascertained that the Russians and their leader Vladimir Putin hated Hillary Clinton and were actively attempting to assist in the election of Donald Trump. Let's recall that key exchange with Republican Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas:

Comey: Well, the assessment of the intelligence committee was, as the summer went on and the polls appeared to show that Secretary Clinton was gonna win, the Russians sort of gave up and simply focused on trying to undermine her.....

Conaway: Sir, do you believe that the FBI was consistent through early December and on that that was the case. That they -- they assessed that they really wanted Trump to win it and were working to help him win and her lose.

Comey: Yes, our analysts had a view that I don't believe changed, from late fall through to the report on January 6 that it had those three elements.'
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/opinions/what-to-expect-from-comey-callan/

[popinjay]

"CNN", lol, oh my side hurts, my eyes are watering.

[VegasJerry]

It sure did. I finally got you to admit there's Christian Terrorism, too.

Jerry (winning) 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

It was also on NBC, MSNBC, CBS, BBC...

[popinjay]

Please, stop it, I can't breathe.

[Dutch]

Which I never denied in the first place... PLUS that had nothing to do
with my question about George Soros.

But keep on tapping away, you're bound to say something meaningful someday.

[VegasJerry]

Yea, you did, that’s the point of me having to rub your nose in it.

> PLUS that had nothing to do with my question about George Soros.
>
> But keep on tapping away, you're bound to say something meaningful someday.

I just did. But I do love hearing you make those backup noises…

[Dutch]

Then you should be able to show me a quote.

>
>> PLUS that had nothing to do with my question about George Soros.
>>
>> But keep on tapping away, you're bound to say something meaningful someday.
>
> I just did. But I do love hearing you make those backup noises…

Those are floundering noises and they're coming from you. It's a sound
everybody here is very familiar with.

Good decision not taking my bet on which religious extremists would
launch the next terrorist attack. You're learning.

[risky biz]

I didn't hear about this bet I'll take some action. I'll bet on the religious extremists whose country we invaded.

[Clave]

"risky biz" <swing...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c62ba7c4-b920-4b7c...@googlegroups.com...

That's not very specific. Anyone got an over/under on how recently we
invaded the home country in question?

[VegasJerry]

LOL @ “Everybody.” That’s your noise trying to find help. They ain’t there. They left
you like they did when you couldn’t address the fact that guy didn’t have a seat on
the airplane. Notice the airlines are still kicking people off their planes. Just like I
just kicked your ass again. (Or me ‘terrorizing’ you again).

You’re all alone and learning…

Jerry ‘n Vegas

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 3 June 2017 06:24:38 UTC+1, popinjay wrote:

> "CNN", lol, oh my side hurts, my eyes are watering.

Very fake news. Even Don knows it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c36oCX0ZI7I

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> They left
> you like they did when you couldn’t address the fact that guy didn’t have a seat on
> the airplane. Notice the airlines are still kicking people off their planes.

Notice they are no longer removing passengers to accommodate deadheading
flight crews. That's because they LOST that argument, just like you did,
the difference is they know it.

Airlines have always had the authority to remove people from flights,
assuming they have legitimate grounds.

[Dutch]

Clave wrote:
>>> Good decision not taking my bet on which religious extremists would
>>> launch the next terrorist attack. You're learning.
>>
>> I didn't hear about this bet I'll take some action. I'll bet on the
>> religious extremists whose country we invaded.
>
> That's not very specific. Anyone got an over/under on how recently we
> invaded the home country in question?

Near as I can tell the next terrorist attack after I proposed that bet
was a suicide bombing by Boko Haram in Cameroon killing 13 and wounding
30. I don't believe "we" ever invaded Cameroon, although I'm sure
exponents of Chomskyian logic will find a way to blame America for it.

Also, the two London attackers they have identified were Pakistan and
Moroccan born British citizens, more places "we" haven't invaded.

The apparent ringleader, Khuram Shazad Butt, was a known extremist who
was even banned from local Mosques. It's time guys like that start
getting locked up before they have the opportunity to hurt innocent people.

[VegasJerry]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:51:34 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > They left
> > you like they did when you couldn’t address the fact that guy didn’t have a seat on
> > the airplane. Notice the airlines are still kicking people off their planes.

> Notice they are no longer removing passengers to accommodate deadheading
> flight crews.

Notice you did not address my factual statement.
Notice you did not admit the airlines, and I, were right; they can remove passengers.
Notice you still dodge…

> That's because they LOST that argument, just like you did,

Notice I did not, you did. Ergo, your dodging.

> Airlines have always had the authority to remove people from flights,

Contrary to what you had claimed.

Notice you refuse to admit you lost; and all alone.

Jerry ‘n Vegas

[popinjay]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:37:06 PM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:



>
> Notice I did not, you did. Ergo, your dodging.
>

"Ergo", "metaphor", Mr. Fancy Pants with the big words all of a sudden. Did your doctor give you a smart pill or something? A brain transplant with someone with a triple digit IQ? Like someone who was a republican?

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:51:34 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>> They left
>>> you like they did when you couldn’t address the fact that guy didn’t have a seat on
>>> the airplane. Notice the airlines are still kicking people off their planes.
>
>> Notice they are no longer removing passengers to accommodate deadheading
>> flight crews.
>
> Notice you did not address my factual statement.
> Notice you did not admit the airlines, and I, were right; they can remove passengers.

..which was never in dispute. In fact it was I who posted the long of
list of grounds that allow them to do so.

> Notice you still dodge…

By sticking to the original story, not making up a new story where I get
to be right, which is exactly what you are doing.

>> That's because they LOST that argument, just like you did,
>
> Notice I did not, you did. Ergo, your dodging.

You backed them, they backed down and immediately changed their policy.

How is that you winning?

>> Airlines have always had the authority to remove people from flights,
>
> Contrary to what you had claimed.

Care to provide a cite?

Didn't think so.. now apologize for lying.

>
> Notice you refuse to admit you lost; and all alone.

You are sooo bad at this.

[VegasJerry]

Hey, listen pal, I paid 25¢ apiece for them words - I'm gonna use 'em.

[VegasJerry]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 4:14:00 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:51:34 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>> They left
> >>> you like they did when you couldn’t address the fact that guy didn’t have a seat on
> >>> the airplane. Notice the airlines are still kicking people off their planes.
> >
> >> Notice they are no longer removing passengers to accommodate deadheading
> >> flight crews.
> >
> > Notice you did not address my factual statement.
> > Notice you did not admit the airlines, and I, were right; they can remove passengers.

> ..which was never in dispute. In fact it was I who posted the long of
> list of grounds that allow them to do so.

But always maintained they could not remove him.

Learn to lose, asshole…
“You are sooo bad at this….”

[risky biz]

If he was banned from local Muslim mosques that proves the terror attack was caused by the Islamic religion, doesn't it 'dutch'? And OH MY GOD! Did the local Islamic mosques where he was banned APOLOGIZE for everyone who was killed and injured?

Please place "I'm full of shit, I have an endless supply" sounds here > > > [ ]

[risky biz]

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:15:32 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> Clave wrote:
> >>> Good decision not taking my bet on which religious extremists would
> >>> launch the next terrorist attack. You're learning.
> >>
> >> I didn't hear about this bet I'll take some action. I'll bet on the
> >> religious extremists whose country we invaded.
> >
> > That's not very specific. Anyone got an over/under on how recently we
> > invaded the home country in question?
>
> Near as I can tell the next terrorist attack after I proposed that bet
> was a suicide bombing by Boko Haram in Cameroon killing 13 and wounding
> 30. I don't believe "we" ever invaded Cameroon, although I'm sure
> exponents of Chomskyian logic will find a way to blame America for it.

Boko Haram has professed it's allegiance to ISIS and they are in Iraq, which we invaded.

There was also a terror attack in Australia the same day in which the perpetrator said it was for ISIS and they are in Iraq, which we invaded.

> Also, the two London attackers they have identified were Pakistan and
> Moroccan born British citizens, more places "we" haven't invaded.

No one in Pakistan or Morocco claimed responsibility for the attack. ISIS did and they are in Iraq, which we invaded.

ISIS came into existence due to the American invasion of Iraq. There would never have been an ISIS without the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Everyone with a functioning brain can recognize this.

Your post rating: FAIL.

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
>>> Notice you did not address my factual statement.
>>> > > Notice you did not admit the airlines, and I, were right; they can remove passengers.
>
>> > ..which was never in dispute. In fact it was I who posted the long of
>> > list of grounds that allow them to do so.
> But always maintained they could not remove him.

The reason they used was not in their TOC. They removed him illegally.

[VegasJerry]

JFC! It didn’t have to be. He lost his seat. He was LEGALLY required to
GET THE FUCK OFF THE PLANE. How fucking many times to you need
to be told this? You're the ONLY one here still dodging that. And this passenger
thing was just another example of how you were wrong. The original post –
about 10 up – was about you having to admit there is such a thing as Christian
Terrorism. What a whiney bitch….

Again, LEARN TO LOSE. (You’re getting good at it).

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:21:33 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>>>> Notice you did not address my factual statement.
>>>>>>> Notice you did not admit the airlines, and I, were right; they can remove passengers.
>>>
>>>>> ..which was never in dispute. In fact it was I who posted the long of
>>>>> list of grounds that allow them to do so.
>>> But always maintained they could not remove him.
>
>> The reason they used was not in their TOC. They removed him illegally.
>
> JFC! It didn’t have to be. He lost his seat.

How can he "lose his seat"? He was *in* his seat before they dragged him
off. He never gave them grounds to remove him,

> He was LEGALLY required to
> GET THE FUCK OFF THE PLANE.

According to what law or regulation? I've already shown you the
regulation that clearly lists all the legal grounds for removal.

>How fucking many times to you need
> to be told this? You're the ONLY one here still dodging that.

You're wrong, repeating a lie a million times doesn't make it any less
wrong. You've been watching Donald Trump too much.

And this passenger
> thing was just another example of how you were wrong. The original post –
> about 10 up – was about you having to admit there is such a thing as Christian
> Terrorism. What a whiney bitch….

I'm still waiting for you to provide the quote where I claimed there was
no such thing as Christian terrorism. What I said was that it is
insignificant compared to Islamic terrorism, a fact which gets proven on
a weekly basis.

> Again, LEARN TO LOSE. (You’re getting good at it).

What you really want is for me to pretend that you're right. Why would I
ever do that? Why would you want that? Is your ego that fragile?

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:35:47 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:21:33 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>>>> Notice you did not address my factual statement.
> >>>>>>> Notice you did not admit the airlines, and I, were right; they can remove passengers.
> >>>
> >>>>> ..which was never in dispute. In fact it was I who posted the long of
> >>>>> list of grounds that allow them to do so.
> >>> But always maintained they could not remove him.
> >
> >> The reason they used was not in their TOC. They removed him illegally.
> >
> > JFC! It didn’t have to be. He lost his seat.

> How can he "lose his seat"? He was *in* his seat before they dragged him
> off. He never gave them grounds to remove him,

This is what’s meant by you whining and dodging. We’ve been over this. You were
wrong. You lost. The airline, it’s lawyers, and I were right. You, alone, keep whining
about not being wrong because of some rules you were fed that had nothing to do
with the fact his seat was reassigned and he was required to get off the aircraft.

Same for you having to finally admit there is Christian Terrorism. You’re claiming
you’ve always admitted to it when the reason we went on and on is because you
refused to admit it.

You’re one of those whiney bitches that simply cannot admit to having been wrong.
You’re one of those whiney bitches that feels, if he keeps denying it by repeatedly
reposting phony circular arguments, that reader weirdness will somehow dull your
embarrassment. So please, show how I’m right, again, by continuing your dodging.

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:35:47 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

[..]

>>. He never gave them grounds to remove him,
>
> This is what’s meant by you whining and dodging. We’ve been over this. You were
> wrong. You lost. The airline, it’s lawyers, and I were right. You, alone, keep whining
> about not being wrong because of some rules you were fed that had nothing to do

"Some rules", meaning the TOC governing under what circumstances the
airline may remove passengers.

> with the fact his seat was reassigned and he was required to get off the aircraft.

That's complete bullshit. This "reassigned" nonsense is just you
desperately trying to win an argument that you lost long ago. The
airline admitted it was in violation of its TOC and that the removal was
improper.

>
> Same for you having to finally admit there is Christian Terrorism. You’re claiming
> you’ve always admitted to it when the reason we went on and on is because you
> refused to admit it.

Never happened. You're lying again. The proof is your failure to produce
the quote to substantiate it.

You lose, again.

<snip floundering>

[risky biz]

'dutch'- please STFU. The Airline had a right to remove him. He was dragged because he improperly refused to recognize that right. End of story.

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 5:25:33 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:35:47 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> [..]
> >>. He never gave them grounds to remove him,
> >
> > This is what’s meant by you whining and dodging. We’ve been over this. You were
> > wrong. You lost. The airline, it’s lawyers, and I were right. You, alone, keep whining
> > about not being wrong because of some rules you were fed that had nothing to do

> "Some rules", meaning the TOC …

Knew you couldn’t learn to lose….
Fuck off

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 5:25:33 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:35:47 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> [..]
>>>> . He never gave them grounds to remove him,
>>>
>>> This is what’s meant by you whining and dodging. We’ve been over this. You were
>>> wrong. You lost. The airline, it’s lawyers, and I were right. You, alone, keep whining
>>> about not being wrong because of some rules you were fed that had nothing to do
>

>> "Some rules", meaning the COC …

>
> Knew you couldn’t learn to lose….
> Fuck off

So you're saying that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
terms of their COC. Strange position to take for a law and order guy..

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:49:49 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 5:25:33 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:35:47 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>>> . He never gave them grounds to remove him,
> >>>
> >>> This is what’s meant by you whining and dodging. We’ve been over this. You were
> >>> wrong. You lost. The airline, it’s lawyers, and I were right. You, alone, keep whining
> >>> about not being wrong because of some rules you were fed that had nothing to do
> >
> >> "Some rules", meaning the COC …
> >
> > Knew you couldn’t learn to lose….
> > Fuck off
>

> So you're saying ...

I'm saying, "Knew you couldn't learn to lose..."
What part of that didn't you understand? (Rhetorical)

> that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
> terms of their COC.

AGAIN! Like you've been told a number of times you tried
dodging to this; "They didn't have to. He lost his seat.
He was required to get off."

AGAIN! What part of that didn't you understand each time
you were told that? (Again, rhetorical).

AGAIN; "You lost. You were wrong. Learn to lose." (Rhetorical)

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:49:49 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

>> So you're saying ...

>> that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
>> terms of their COC.
>

>"They didn't have to. He lost his seat.

How did he "lose it"?

> He was required to get off."

If "he lost it" then how is it they dragged him out of it?

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:54:31 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:49:49 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
> >> So you're saying ...
> >> that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
> >> terms of their COC.
> >
> >"They didn't have to. He lost his seat.
>
> How did he "lose it"?

Give it up, kid; it's you that's lost it...

Jerry (a long time ago) 'n Vegas

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:54:31 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:49:49 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>> So you're saying ...
>>>> that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
>>>> terms of their COC.
>>>
>>> "They didn't have to. He lost his seat.
>>
>> How did he "lose it"?
>
> Give it up, kid; it's you that's lost it...

You keep saying, "he lost his seat", how did he "lose it"?

If someone steals your car, is your car "lost"?

Why would you reopen this subject when you have no argument?

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:54:31 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:49:49 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >>>> So you're saying ...
> >>>> that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
> >>>> terms of their COC.
> >>>
> >>> "They didn't have to. He lost his seat.
> >>
> >> How did he "lose it"?
> >
> > Give it up, kid; it's you that's lost it...
>
> You keep saying, "he lost his seat", how did he "lose it"?
>
> If someone steals your car, is your car "lost"?
>
> Why would you reopen this subject when you have no argument?

Why would you continue an argument you lost two-weeks ago?
Not to mention you not mentioning you lost on Christian Terrorism,
which is what this thread was about.

Like I pointed out; you’re playing the, “If I repost lost arguments enough,
nobody will notice I lost another one.”

Like I said, “Give it up kid; it’s you that’s lost; again.”

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:54:31 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:49:49 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So you're saying ...
>>>>>> that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
>>>>>> terms of their COC.
>>>>>
>>>>> "They didn't have to. He lost his seat.
>>>>
>>>> How did he "lose it"?
>>>
>>> Give it up, kid; it's you that's lost it...
>>
>> You keep saying, "he lost his seat", how did he "lose it"?
>>
>> If someone steals your car, is your car "lost"?
>>
>> Why would you reopen this subject when you have no argument?
>
> Why would you continue an argument you lost two-weeks ago?

You keep saying, "he lost his seat", as if that meant something. How did
he "lose it"?

You continue to dodge your own statements. United had no legal grounds
to remove him, they have admitted it, settled with him and amended their
policy wrt to bumping of passengers so it doesn't happen again.

> Not to mention you not mentioning you lost on Christian Terrorism,
> which is what this thread was about.

Scores of innocent men, women and children have been murdered by Islamic
Terrorists since that conversation just a short time ago. NOBODY has
died by Christian Terrorism. This will continue to be the case for as
long as we live. Your embarassment on this topic will continue to build
and haunt you, even as you choose to keep your head firmly planted in
the ground.

>
> Like I pointed out; you’re playing the, “If I repost lost arguments enough,
> nobody will notice I lost another one.”
>
> Like I said, “Give it up kid; it’s you that’s lost; again.”

You're dancing in your own end-zone chump. I'm not rubbing it in, these
are self-inflicted wounds. Do yourself a favor and go off and lick them.
The bright side is, your reputation here can't be damaged. You're living
down to expectations.

[popinjay]

One question. Is this supposed to be a thread where you continue your debate about the guy on the airplane? Well? Is it?

[Dutch]

popinjay wrote:
>
> One question. Is this supposed to be a thread where you continue your debate about the guy on the airplane? Well? Is it?

Jerry thought it would help to distract from a topic where he's getting
his ass kicked to bring up a recent one where he got his ass kicked.

I don't follow the logic.

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:54:31 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >>>> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:49:49 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> So you're saying ...
> >>>>>> that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
> >>>>>> terms of their COC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "They didn't have to. He lost his seat.
> >>>>
> >>>> How did he "lose it"?
> >>>
> >>> Give it up, kid; it's you that's lost it...
> >>
> >> You keep saying, "he lost his seat", how did he "lose it"?
> >>
> >> If someone steals your car, is your car "lost"?
> >>
> >> Why would you reopen this subject when you have no argument?

> > Why would you continue an argument you lost two-weeks ago?

Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you couldn’t answer.

> > Not to mention you not mentioning you lost on Christian Terrorism,
> > which is what this thread was about.

Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you couldn’t answer.

> > Like I pointed out; you’re playing the, “If I repost lost arguments enough,
> > nobody will notice I lost another one.”

Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you’d do it again.

> > Like I said, “Give it up kid; it’s you that’s lost; again.”

Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you repeat your lost arguments – again…

> > Why would you continue an argument you lost two-weeks ago?

> You keep saying...

Knew you couldn't answer...

> > "he lost his seat", as if that meant something.
> > How did he "lose it"?

Like you’ve been told a dozen times, by me and United:It was reassigned.
Knew you repeat your lost arguments – again and again and again…

> You continue to dodge your own statements.

How am I dodging a statement by making it? (AGAIN)

> United had no legal grounds to remove him.

Like you’ve been told a dozen times, by me and United: They did. (And still do).

And you, continually repeating this lie, like I said you would, goes to my ‘statement.’

“Like I pointed out; you’re playing the, “If I repost lost

arguments enough, nobody will notice I lost another one.”

But do keep playing your dodging game of:

“If I repost lost arguments enough, nobody will notice I lost another one.”

Jerry (watching you stuck in your Tar Baby) ‘n Vegas

Everybody (watching for you to repeat your dodges) ‘n RGPLand

[VegasJerry]

No, this is the one where he finally admitted there is such a thing as Christian Terrorism. This is him dodging his lose by going back to his “Lost His United Seat” loss.

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:23:27 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> I don't follow the logic.

Only thing you've said that's right...

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:54:31 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:49:49 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you're saying ...
>>>>>>>> that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
>>>>>>>> terms of their COC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "They didn't have to. He lost his seat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How did he "lose it"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Give it up, kid; it's you that's lost it...
>>>>
>>>> You keep saying, "he lost his seat", how did he "lose it"?
>>>>
>>>> If someone steals your car, is your car "lost"?
>>>>
>>>> Why would you reopen this subject when you have no argument?
>
>>> Why would you continue an argument you lost two-weeks ago?
>
> Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you couldn’t answer.
>
>>> Not to mention you not mentioning you lost on Christian Terrorism,
>>> which is what this thread was about.
>
> Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you couldn’t answer.

I answered that, more than once.

>>> Like I pointed out; you’re playing the, “If I repost lost arguments enough,
>>> nobody will notice I lost another one.”
>
> Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you’d do it again.

Cut what?

>
>>> Like I said, “Give it up kid; it’s you that’s lost; again.”
>
> Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you repeat your lost arguments – again…

You're embarrassing yourself.

>>> Why would you continue an argument you lost two-weeks ago?
>
>> You keep saying...
>
> Knew you couldn't answer...

I've answered everything, you've answered nothing.

>
>>> "he lost his seat", as if that meant something.
>>> How did he "lose it"?
>
> Like you’ve been told a dozen times, by me and United:It was reassigned.
> Knew you repeat your lost arguments – again and again and again…

How did he "lose it"? That's the question you keep dodging.

Answer the question, coward.

>> You continue to dodge your own statements.
>
> How am I dodging a statement by making it? (AGAIN)

How did he "lose it"? That's the question you keep dodging.

>
>> United had no legal grounds to remove him.
>
> Like you’ve been told a dozen times, by me and United: They did. (And still do).

What were the grounds? "It's our plane and we make the rules" argument
that BillB fed you? That's baloney.

>
> And you, continually repeating this lie, like I said you would, goes to my ‘statement.’

What lie?

>
> “Like I pointed out; you’re playing the, “If I repost lost
> arguments enough, nobody will notice I lost another one.”
>
> But do keep playing your dodging game of:
>
> “If I repost lost arguments enough, nobody will notice I lost another one.”

You are playing that game, that's true, but you didn't learn it from me.

I didn't lose either of these arguments. In fact, these are the two most
clear cut wins for me of any arguments by anyone on this group in recent
memory. Slam dunks, both of them.

And you've picked these two arguments as the hill to die on.

I'm just watching you self-immolate in front of everyone.

[Dutch]

I never said there was no such thing as Christian Terrorism. What I have
said is that comparing "Christian Terrorism" to Islamic Terrorism is
like comparing a bb-gun to a machine-gun.

> This is him dodging his lose by going back to his “Lost His United Seat” loss.

Which you are clearly, hopelessly and laughably on the wrong side of.

You're a masochist, is that it?

[risky biz]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:23:27 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

Jerry made a fool out of you both times but I'm sure your endless, reality-defying argumentativeness will continue for weeks or months.

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:09:24 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >>>> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 12:54:31 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:49:49 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So you're saying ...
> >>>>>>>> that the airline was not obliged to comply with the
> >>>>>>>> terms of their COC.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "They didn't have to. He lost his seat.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How did he "lose it"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Give it up, kid; it's you that's lost it...
> >>>>
> >>>> You keep saying, "he lost his seat", how did he "lose it"?
> >>>>
> >>>> If someone steals your car, is your car "lost"?
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would you reopen this subject when you have no argument?
> >
> >>> Why would you continue an argument you lost two-weeks ago?
> >
> > Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you couldn’t answer.
> >
> >>> Not to mention you not mentioning you lost on Christian Terrorism,
> >>> which is what this thread was about.
> >
> > Knew you’d cut this from your post. Knew you couldn’t answer.

> I answered that, more than once.

<… repetitive whiney shit deleted …>

Bla, bla, bla. It’s growing tiresome making a fool of you. As I proved my, and United’s, point on how they had the right to force him off the plane – and continue to toss people off planes to this day – everybody on RGP but you saw the light and dropped out. You’re still here trying to convince everybody that you’re somehow right and that me, the FAA, United and the courts were wrong. “Yea, but there’s some rules here I found, that if you interpret it my way, makes me right and everybody else wrong. Waa! Waa!”

Give it the fuck up. (Like you did when you finally admitted there’s Christian Terrorism).

“You’re too dumb for words.”

[Dutch]

That's because you're making a fool of yourself.

> As I proved my, and United’s, point on how they had the right to force him off the plane

They did not.

– and continue to toss people off planes to this day

When they have proper grounds.

– everybody on RGP but you saw the light and dropped out.

Exactly, they saw the obvious, that you for some reason are unable to
see, that United's removal of Dr Lao was in clear violation of their COC.

> You’re still here trying to convince everybody that you’re somehow right and that me, the FAA, United and the courts were wrong.

Where are getting this shit? The governing body is the DOT, the courts
were not involved, and United admitted they were out of line and amended
their bumping policy immediately to come into compliance.

> “Yea, but there’s some rules here I found, that if you interpret it
my way, makes me right and everybody else wrong. Waa! Waa!”

The "rule I found" is the law and authority governing this situation.

> Give it the fuck up. (Like you did when you finally admitted there’s Christian Terrorism).
>
> “You’re too dumb for words.”

Have you had a stroke or something? I'm not a sadist, I don't want you
to keep making a fool of yourself, I'm on your team, but you need to
drop this. If you need me to give you the last word just say so and I will.

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:13:02 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> > Bla, bla, bla. It’s growing tiresome making a fool of you.

> That's because you're making a fool....

[risky biz]

You lost this disagreement a long time ago, 'dutch'. Quit yammering about it.

[Dutch]

You've chosen the two most clear cut issues in recent memory and you've
stuck a flag in the wrong side of both of them. What's wrong with you?

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:56:47 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:13:02 AM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >
> >>> Bla, bla, bla. It’s growing tiresome making a fool of you.
> >
> >> That's because you're making a fool....
> >
> > Bla, bla, bla. It’s growing tiresome making a fool of you.
>
>
> You've chosen the two most clear cut issues in recent memory and you've
> stuck a flag in the wrong side of both of them. What's wrong with you?

[Dutch]

You are wrong on both issues. The evidence is that your arguments on
both have morphed into strawmen.

United had the legal authority to remove Dr Dao has become Airlines can
remove passengers, which I never denied.

Christian terrorism is comparable to Islamic terrorism has become
there's such a thing as Christian terrorism, which I never denied.

I think you're getting senile.

[VegasJerry]

[fffurken]

On Saturday, 10 June 2017 07:13:05 UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> Christian terrorism is comparable to Islamic terrorism has become
> there's such a thing as Christian terrorism, which I never denied.

Examples please...

[Dutch]

VegasJerry shit his pants again..:


You're a fact-resistant nitwit and you're stubborn.. congratulations, a
double threat.

[VegasJerry]

[Dutch]

If by "lost" you mean mopped the floor with you.

You sound like the right wing media celebrating Comey's testimony as a
victory for Trump.

Still waiting for one of those "Christian Terrorists" to attack..

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 5:48:38 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:53:10 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> VegasJerry shit his pants again..:
> >>
> >>
> >> You're a fact-resistant nitwit and you're stubborn.. congratulations, a
> >> double threat.
> >
> > "You lost this disagreement a long time ago, 'dutch'. Quit yammering about it."

> If by "lost" you mean mopped the floor with…..

Isn’t that cute? Right on command; just like Trump. I foretold it about a dozen
messages up: “If I post last then I’m showing that I don’t think I lost.”

Keep “yammering about it,” Dutch. Make that ‘last post’ dodge again…
Good boy, sit, stay, bark…

Jerry

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 5:48:38 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:53:10 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>> VegasJerry shit his pants again..:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're a fact-resistant nitwit and you're stubborn.. congratulations, a
>>>> double threat.
>>>
>>> "You lost this disagreement a long time ago, 'dutch'. Quit yammering about it."
>
>> If by "lost" you mean mopped the floor with…..
>
> Isn’t that cute?

It's actually kind of pitiful.

[VegasJerry]

Fixed your LAST (pitiful) POST:

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:45:24 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 5:48:38 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >> VegasJerry wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:53:10 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> >>>> VegasJerry shit his pants again..:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're a fact-resistant nitwit and you're stubborn.. congratulations, a
> >>>> double threat.
> >>>
> >>> "You lost this disagreement a long time ago, 'dutch'. Quit yammering about it."
> >
> >> If by "lost" you mean mopped the floor with…..
> >
> > Isn’t that cute?

FYP: I added the parts that embarrassed you about posting a LAST POST:

________________

> > Isn’t that cute? Right on command; just like Trump. I foretold it about a dozen
> > messages up: “If I post last then I’m showing that I don’t think I lost.”
> >
> > Keep “yammering about it,” Dutch. Make that ‘last post’ dodge again…
> > Good boy, sit, stay, bark…

[Dutch]

VegasJerry wrote:
> Fixed your LAST (pitiful) POST:
>
> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:45:24 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 5:48:38 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>> VegasJerry wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:53:10 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> VegasJerry shit his pants again..:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a fact-resistant nitwit and you're stubborn.. congratulations, a
>>>>>> double threat.
>>>>>
>>>>> "You lost this disagreement a long time ago, 'dutch'. Quit yammering about it."
>>>
>>>> If by "lost" you mean mopped the floor with…..
>>>
>>> Isn’t that cute?
>
> FYP: I added the parts that embarrassed you about posting a LAST POST:

OK, enough, no hard feelings pal, go for it.. last word is yours.