Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

DNC Primary Rigged

It's fine if you want to take this as gospel, but at least be consistent going forward and take all "assumed" truths as truth. Thanks in advance

Originally posted by Robtard
It's fine if you want to take this as gospel, but at least be consistent going forward and take all "assumed" truths as truth. Thanks in advance

Wait, you think it wasn't rigged against Bernie? I thought you knew it was. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious by now?

Originally posted by Sable
Wait, you think it wasn't rigged against Bernie? I thought you knew it was. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious by now?

Considering I've said something like '**** the DNC for what they did to Bernie' back when Clinton won the nom and you responded to that, not sure why you're asking now.

But I was referring to Surtur's double-standard of "assumed" information. Going forward I hope he takes it all as truth, as he does here.

I dont remember that post, but cool, they did **** him over badly.

Schultz needs to go play in raw sewage.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's fine if you want to take this as gospel, but at least be consistent going forward and take all "assumed" truths as truth. Thanks in advance

You telling others to be consistent....lol. Too funny.

Originally posted by BackFire
Schultz needs to go play in raw sewage.

Isn't that a Sexist Comment?

Courts do not concede anything.

Aw look its one of those tryhards that think Bernie waa treated fairly. Adam I forgot you were pretty much the only die hard Hillary voter here. How much this must suck for you

Come back when you understand how courts work and what they do.

Originally posted by Sable
Aw look its one of those tryhards that think Bernie waa treated fairly. Adam I forgot you were pretty much the only die hard Hillary voter here. How much this must suck for you

Word is Debbie is awfully paranoid these days. Running from reporters, etc.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Come back when you understand how courts work and what they do.

Come back when you can read Mr 1%

Originally posted by Sable
Come back when you can read Mr 1%

Apparently, you cannot read, because you do not even know what concede means, let alone understand basic civics.

You didnt even read the article.

Nice lie in the other thread. Snake.

Pathetic attempt to move goal posts cause you cant admit Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz rigged it

Originally posted by Sable
Pathetic attempt to move goal posts cause you cant admit Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz rigged it

Here is my first post in the thread:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Courts do not concede anything.

By all means, where did I move the goal post?

Nah you cant read. Kindly fck off

Well, one of us cannot, and it is fairly obvious to those of us who can, who that person is.

Why is why you keep lying

He's playing word games so he doesn't have to deal with what the court said. it's rather sad.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He's playing word games so he doesn't have to deal with what the court said. it's rather sad.

Indeed, but it's not gonna fly.

Adam: what is your opinion on what the court said?

Originally posted by Silent Master
He's playing word games so he doesn't have to deal with what the court said. it's rather sad.

Exaxtly what I said. Adam is a Clinton loyalist and hated Bernie, which explains his pathetic behavior.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He's playing word games so he doesn't have to deal with what the court said. it's rather sad.

What is sad is the notion that anyone should trust the reading comprehension of someone who does not even have a basic command of the English language.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What is sad is the notion that anyone should trust the reading comprehension of someone who does not even have a basic command of the English language.

Your thoughts on what the court said are what?

awful

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
awful

https://media.giphy.com/media/NEvPzZ8bd1V4Y/giphy.gif

Lol triggered across multiple threads, awesome.

triggered? why? i gave an answer.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
triggered? why? i gave an answer.

Oh you're so very triggered lol. You threw a fit over me using the word awful, it's why you are going around using it as a response lol.

Make no mistake: I'm not asking you to cease this behavior.

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh you're so very triggered lol. You threw a fit over me using the word awful, it's why you are going around using it as a response lol.

Make no mistake: I'm not asking you to cease this behavior.

i forgot that it's only okay when you do it. i just keep forgetting those special manbaby rules that everyone except for you has to adhere to.
maybe post a thread listing all your special snowflake rules, and the mods can sticky it? would save a lot of confusion and hassle.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i forgot that it's only okay when you do it. i just keep forgetting those special manbaby rules that everyone except for you has to adhere to.
maybe post a thread listing all your special snowflake rules, and the mods can sticky it? would save a lot of confusion and hassle.

Lol did you truly think this excuse would fly? You're obviously quite triggered over the usage of the word, it is plain to see.

I don't care if you use it, but I'm not going to ignore the reason why lol. You. Are. Triggered.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, but it's not gonna fly.

Oh, yeah? Who is going to enforce that, you?




Originally posted by Surtur
Adam: what is your opinion on what the court said?

My opinion is that you and Sable do not understand what the court said. From the article he posted, and you selectively quoted from:



In other words, the court did not find any evidence of wrongdoing. Rather, it is a procedural move in a civil proceeding to accept the truth of the claim of the plaintiffs in order to assess whether they were materially injured. And upon evaluation, the court found that they were not, and dismissed the entire suit. You two would know that if you had bothered to read the article in full instead of once again falling for the click bait headline.

I never said it was evidence lol. I will ask one final time: what do you think of what the court said?

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said it was evidence lol. I will ask one final time: what do you think of what the court said?

No shit. I did not say you did. I said you did not understand what the court said. And I stand by that.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No shit. I did not say you did. I said you did not understand what the court said. And I stand by that.

One more time: what do you think about what the court said?

awful. just awful. super-awful.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
awful. just awful. super-awful.

Lol your meltdown is spectacular.

nope. that's just you projecting your stunted little feelz again.

Originally posted by Surtur
One more time: what do you think about what the court said?

Here is a better question: What do you think the court said? Because you do not seem to understand it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Here is a better question: What do you think the court said? Because you do not seem to understand it.

I've asked you 3 times, now I'm asking you a 4th: what is your opinion on what the court said?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nope. that's just you projecting your stunted little feelz again.

I see, and when it's you claiming others are melting down, same deal correct? Or special rules?

adam, just say "awful". in fact answer every one of his questions with "awful".
i learned from surt that this is apparently a detailed and sufficient answer for...well...everything, really.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
adam, just say "awful". in fact answer every one of his questions with "awful".
i learned from surt that this is apparently a detailed and sufficient answer for...well...everything, really.

This is a possible answer. It would show he is triggered, but it would be acceptable.

Originally posted by Surtur
I've asked you 3 times, now I'm asking you a 4th: what is your opinion on what the court said?

And I have asked you one time. So what?

The judge sided against Sanders supporters, finding their case without merit. The court, in a procedural move, had to presume for the sake of argument that the accusations of the Plaintiffs were true, in order to assess their claims, and dismiss the suit. The author knew idiots like you and Sable are too dumb to understand that, and posted a nice click bait headline for you to fall for.

What is your opinion of that?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And I have asked you one time. So what?

The judge sided against Sanders supporters, finding their case without merit. The court, in a procedural move, had to presume for the sake of argument that the accusations of the Plaintiffs were true, in order to assess their claims, and dismiss the suit. The author knew idiots like you and Sable are too dumb to understand that, and posted a nice click bait headline for you to fall for.

What is your opinion of that?

My opinion is it shouldn't have taken 4 times to get an answer. My opinion is also that there is nothing wrong with what you said, they didn't say they had evidence or anything like that. They did indeed assume it.

Now I feel what I just posted was not necessarily unreasonable. Will people whine over it?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The author knew idiots like you and Sable are too dumb to understand that, and posted a nice click bait headline for you to fall for.

http://i.imgur.com/D4ysFmy.jpg

that's exactly what happened. headline knee-jerking as usual, and he never read the article.

Originally posted by Surtur
My opinion is it shouldn't have taken 4 times to get an answer. My opinion is also that there is nothing wrong with what you said, they didn't say they had evidence or anything like that. They did indeed assume it.

Now I feel what I just posted was not necessarily unreasonable. Will people whine over it?

Nice back track:

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
http://i.imgur.com/D4ysFmy.jpg

that's exactly what happened. headline knee-jerking as usual, and he never read the article.

Well you said it, it must be true.

the evidence is clear that you did not read the article, so yes it is correct. you gonna cry about it now, babyman?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the evidence is clear that you did not read the article, so yes it is correct. you gonna cry about it now, babyman?

Ohh? Quote back the clear evidence. Clear evidence is not based on implications, mind you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He's playing word games so he doesn't have to deal with what the court said. it's rather sad.

He is a clown. We cant expect much more.