The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hello Bell,
Seeing as I don't want to turn a someone else's thread into a slanging match, I thought I'd start my own and repeat what I've said;
Please, give me your story on how Bush won the election fair and square, and I'll detail why I believe he is no more the legitimately elected president than you are a courageous debator who will always meet a challenge. Then we can let it drop. Feel free to start...
Seeing as I don't want to turn a someone else's thread into a slanging match, I thought I'd start my own and repeat what I've said;
Please, give me your story on how Bush won the election fair and square, and I'll detail why I believe he is no more the legitimately elected president than you are a courageous debator who will always meet a challenge. Then we can let it drop. Feel free to start...
Page:
I see your point, and agree. You should get a reply.
However, they deserve a reply to the umpteen other threads that you've abandoned. It looks like you have to give a little to get a little. And to be fair to Light, he has said he'll reply.
However, they deserve a reply to the umpteen other threads that you've abandoned. It looks like you have to give a little to get a little. And to be fair to Light, he has said he'll reply.
Come on Goatboy, you wanted serious points, scroll down and click back 14 points of clear information to refute. Light's ducked it, now you ? or doesn't Mr Moore cover those in his book :P
My sincere apologies to Bell; I'm afraid I just don't feel up to this right now. I hope to pull out of my dirge of self pity as the week progresses, and I'll respond in full when I do.
Practical Magic wrote:
You're links are nothing
> but third party suposition, anything go before a court ? Any real hard
> evidence that would stand in a court of law ? Nope, and nope. No point
> to answer then.
---
Bwahahaha
Read them before you dismiss.
"Real hard evidence that would stand in a court of law"
Bwahahahaha
Listen Banacyk, the day you do the same is the day I shall return the favour.
Your hard evidence like the "Iraq buying uranium for nuclear programme", which has been dismissed by The White House and the group that investigated.
"hard evidence that would stand in a court of law"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There is a point, because 95% of your posts are supposition (with links).
And when called on them, you dismiss, ignore and pretend you wrote it all as a test.
*waves hand dismissively*
Back to Woolies for you Mr Prosecutor.
You're links are nothing
> but third party suposition, anything go before a court ? Any real hard
> evidence that would stand in a court of law ? Nope, and nope. No point
> to answer then.
---
Bwahahaha
Read them before you dismiss.
"Real hard evidence that would stand in a court of law"
Bwahahahaha
Listen Banacyk, the day you do the same is the day I shall return the favour.
Your hard evidence like the "Iraq buying uranium for nuclear programme", which has been dismissed by The White House and the group that investigated.
"hard evidence that would stand in a court of law"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There is a point, because 95% of your posts are supposition (with links).
And when called on them, you dismiss, ignore and pretend you wrote it all as a test.
*waves hand dismissively*
Back to Woolies for you Mr Prosecutor.
Goatboy wrote:
> Practical Magic wrote:
> Becaue Dr Duck discusses Goatboy's links, and I've read enough Right
> Wing Election Conspiracy rubbish already thanks.!
> --
>
> And just like that, Bell dismisses valid reporting that differs from
> his own views instead of discussing the points raised.
> I'm, like, totally shocked.
And I say again, refute the points I made. You're links are nothing but third party suposition, anything go before a court ? Any real hard evidence that would stand in a court of law ? Nope, and nope. No point to answer then.
> Practical Magic wrote:
> Becaue Dr Duck discusses Goatboy's links, and I've read enough Right
> Wing Election Conspiracy rubbish already thanks.!
> --
>
> And just like that, Bell dismisses valid reporting that differs from
> his own views instead of discussing the points raised.
> I'm, like, totally shocked.
And I say again, refute the points I made. You're links are nothing but third party suposition, anything go before a court ? Any real hard evidence that would stand in a court of law ? Nope, and nope. No point to answer then.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Becaue Dr Duck discusses Goatboy's links, and I've read enough Right
> Wing Election Conspiracy rubbish already thanks.!
--
And just like that, Bell dismisses valid reporting that differs from his own views instead of discussing the points raised.
I'm, like, totally shocked.
> Becaue Dr Duck discusses Goatboy's links, and I've read enough Right
> Wing Election Conspiracy rubbish already thanks.!
--
And just like that, Bell dismisses valid reporting that differs from his own views instead of discussing the points raised.
I'm, like, totally shocked.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Ultimately, for all
> the points those kinds of claims make, there is no evidence, no
> Supreme Court ruling, in fact an absence of just about anything
> concrete.
The procedures on restricting voter eligability in Florida are known and undisputed facts.
The only scope for question is the motive for their use and who ordered it.
For that issue, see the first link (I think) regarding the statement from the data company's employee. Not concrete, but certainly evidence.
> So...disgruntled Democrats can claim fraud with nothing, yet
> Republicans need absolute proof of WMD's in Iraq to convince anyone.
> Hmmm...that's fair. *slips into Wayne mode* NOT !
I'm not sure that's fair.
To create doubt, you need scope to argue something either way.
To create certainty, you need to be able to convince people of your argument completely.
There is doubt regarding the legitimacy of the Florida elections, since there is *possible* fraud.
There is doubt, not certainty, regarding WMDs in Iraq. Again, it's raising a possibility, without conclusive proof either way.
Though in my opinion, there is actually pretty strong evidence of electoral fraud.
> Ultimately, for all
> the points those kinds of claims make, there is no evidence, no
> Supreme Court ruling, in fact an absence of just about anything
> concrete.
The procedures on restricting voter eligability in Florida are known and undisputed facts.
The only scope for question is the motive for their use and who ordered it.
For that issue, see the first link (I think) regarding the statement from the data company's employee. Not concrete, but certainly evidence.
> So...disgruntled Democrats can claim fraud with nothing, yet
> Republicans need absolute proof of WMD's in Iraq to convince anyone.
> Hmmm...that's fair. *slips into Wayne mode* NOT !
I'm not sure that's fair.
To create doubt, you need scope to argue something either way.
To create certainty, you need to be able to convince people of your argument completely.
There is doubt regarding the legitimacy of the Florida elections, since there is *possible* fraud.
There is doubt, not certainty, regarding WMDs in Iraq. Again, it's raising a possibility, without conclusive proof either way.
Though in my opinion, there is actually pretty strong evidence of electoral fraud.
Light wrote:
> Just popping in, but having read through this, it's interesting how
> Bell has said a lot of things, but not one of them even acknowledges
> the content of Dr Ducks first post.
>
> But like I say, no debate from me today.
Becaue Dr Duck discusses Goatboy's links, and I've read enough Right Wing Election Conspiracy rubbish already thanks. Ultimately, for all the points those kinds of claims make, there is no evidence, no Supreme Court ruling, in fact an absence of just about anything concrete. So...disgruntled Democrats can claim fraud with nothing, yet Republicans need absolute proof of WMD's in Iraq to convince anyone. Hmmm...that's fair. *slips into Wayne mode* NOT !
> Just popping in, but having read through this, it's interesting how
> Bell has said a lot of things, but not one of them even acknowledges
> the content of Dr Ducks first post.
>
> But like I say, no debate from me today.
Becaue Dr Duck discusses Goatboy's links, and I've read enough Right Wing Election Conspiracy rubbish already thanks. Ultimately, for all the points those kinds of claims make, there is no evidence, no Supreme Court ruling, in fact an absence of just about anything concrete. So...disgruntled Democrats can claim fraud with nothing, yet Republicans need absolute proof of WMD's in Iraq to convince anyone. Hmmm...that's fair. *slips into Wayne mode* NOT !
Just popping in, but having read through this, it's interesting how Bell has said a lot of things, but not one of them even acknowledges the content of Dr Ducks first post.
But like I say, no debate from me today.
But like I say, no debate from me today.
Read the links, I couldn't be bothered - as you yourself have already stated yesterday with your "yaaaaawn"
Yet still you return.
Your claims about the election are roundly dismissed by people that know more than you and I.
Go read, then muuuuh at me.
Oh, and answer the other topic as well.
Yet still you return.
Your claims about the election are roundly dismissed by people that know more than you and I.
Go read, then muuuuh at me.
Oh, and answer the other topic as well.
Page: