sham0 wrote:
agip wrote:
ack, I meant midterms. R attack ads will turn a lot of suburban women back the Rs after they voted D in the midterms. Not the primaries.
No worries. I'm not sure people are reading through your posts anyway. Your formatting (or lack of) is killing your points. Clean it up and people may be able to read you posts and take them seriously.
This is an informal running message board, not a scientific journal.
Although agip, he has a point sort of regarding formatting.
Racket wrote:
sham0 wrote:
No worries. I'm not sure people are reading through your posts anyway. Your formatting (or lack of) is killing your points. Clean it up and people may be able to read you posts and take them seriously.
This is an informal running message board, not a scientific journal.
Although agip, he has a point sort of regarding formatting.
I will work on it. But I’m more a critic than an artist.
Anyway, Bberg no doubt entered this race to raise the game of Dem advertising. This stuff.
https://twitter.com/mikebloomberg/status/1228755924115955712?s=21Nice work, Immoderate.
Immoderate wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Incorrect. I never predicted a McCabe indictment. Barr has not completed his investigation.
Rigged for Hillary wrote: ON 04/20/2018 1:45pm CDT --
No collusion
No obstruction
A criminal referral for McCabe
A criminal referral is not conviction. It was referred to Barr.
Now if want talk about a wrong prediction then look no further than the ?pole.
Avenatti isn't coming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/michael-avenatti-nike-convicted.html#click=https://t.co/lYCnHdTcyTRigged for Hillary wrote:
Immoderate wrote:
A criminal referral is not conviction. It was referred to Barr.
Now you are admitting that was a witch hunt.
Immoderate wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Incorrect. I never predicted a McCabe indictment. Barr has not completed his investigation.
Rigged for Hillary wrote: ON 04/20/2018 1:45pm CDT --
No collusion
No obstruction
A criminal referral for McCabe
Rigged is a loser, stupid, and losing left and right. McCabe not pursued, Barr criticizing Dear Leader, no Barr Tab coming, and Trump was impeached even though Rigged said it wouldn't happen because he said the Democrats were too afraid to do it. Rigged = dumb@ss loser.
What do Trump and the Houston Astros have in common?
Both cheaters.
Both have Sally as a rabid fan.
Conclusion = Sally loves cheaters.
Smorbun wrote:
What do Trump and the Houston Astros have in common?
Both cheaters.
Both have Sally as a rabid fan.
Conclusion = Sally loves cheaters.
Sally also craves to be rich like Trump. She would give up her health, well being, family and friends, and would accept having to pay some to wipe her butt, as long as she was rich and famous.
Trump is a Thousandaire in reality. A Billionaire only in Trump Fantasyland.
Immoderate wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
What do Trump and the Houston Astros have in common?
Both cheaters.
Both have Sally as a rabid fan.
Conclusion = Sally loves cheaters.
Sally also craves to be rich like Trump. She would give up her health, well being, family and friends, and would accept having to pay some to wipe her butt, as long as she was rich and famous.
Trump is a Thousandaire in reality. A Billionaire only in Trump Fantasyland.
Tzees are well aware which is they prefer not to see the tax returns and get their little fantasy shattered..
agip wrote:
Racket wrote:
This is an informal running message board, not a scientific journal.
Although agip, he has a point sort of regarding formatting.
I will work on it. But I’m more a critic than an artist.
Anyway, Bberg no doubt entered this race to raise the game of Dem advertising. This stuff.
https://twitter.com/mikebloomberg/status/1228755924115955712?s=21
Agip, for what it’s worth I always find your posts clear and easy to follow.
Trollminator wrote:
The Burghh wrote:
Because he was running doesn’t mean he was guilty. I don’t know how old you are but I watched the trial in real time on court tv. You sound like you just read about it years later. I’m done.....it’s old news. Let’s agree to disagree.
I watched it as well and do not share any of your doubts. We all watched his defense twist the plot and deflect, and by pointing a few weak holes in the case they got him off the hook. The murder weapon was inadmissible in court because it was discussed on TV. The evidence and intent basically ruled other possibilities.. he was guilty and his defense team was well aware. Had it been some no name Joe he would have gotten life with half the evidence. OJ was a known lunatic with a past full of aggression. Please do share your theory though as I would love a weekend laugh.
I know I said I was done with this but you are a perfect example of people putting out misinformation. You said “The murder weapon was inadmissible in court because it was discussed on TV”. Where did you hear that nonsense.? THE MURDER WEAPON WAS NEVER FOUND. That’s the kind of stuff that happened during the trial. I would watch the trial on tv then watch the coverage on evening news or read the coverage in the paper and they would state facts in the case that NEVER happened. It was astounding. A scientist would say a test was inconclusive and then the news would report it matched OJs blood. Smh
The Burghh wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I watched it as well and do not share any of your doubts. We all watched his defense twist the plot and deflect, and by pointing a few weak holes in the case they got him off the hook. The murder weapon was inadmissible in court because it was discussed on TV. The evidence and intent basically ruled other possibilities.. he was guilty and his defense team was well aware. Had it been some no name Joe he would have gotten life with half the evidence. OJ was a known lunatic with a past full of aggression. Please do share your theory though as I would love a weekend laugh.
I know I said I was done with this but you are a perfect example of people putting out misinformation. You said “The murder weapon was inadmissible in court because it was discussed on TV”. Where did you hear that nonsense.? THE MURDER WEAPON WAS NEVER FOUND. That’s the kind of stuff that happened during the trial. I would watch the trial on tv then watch the coverage on evening news or read the coverage in the paper and they would state facts in the case that NEVER happened. It was astounding. A scientist would say a test was inconclusive and then the news would report it matched OJs blood. Smh
Sorry that was a miss on my part - it was the alleged *purchase* of the murder weapon that was inadmissible.
The DNA match, which of course only several years ago yielded a more definitive match, with just a 1 in 1 million chave it wasn’t his blood. Then his crazy changing alibis - absolutely nuts the number of stories that were spun up.
Again, this would have been a slam dunk case if it was some random Joe.
But do share your theories
https://famous-trials.com/simpson/1857-evidencehttps://abcnews.go.com/US/oj-simpson-tapes-shocking-things-rarely-deposition-tapes/story?id=33924968Trollminator wrote:
The Burghh wrote:
I know I said I was done with this but you are a perfect example of people putting out misinformation. You said “The murder weapon was inadmissible in court because it was discussed on TV”. Where did you hear that nonsense.? THE MURDER WEAPON WAS NEVER FOUND. That’s the kind of stuff that happened during the trial. I would watch the trial on tv then watch the coverage on evening news or read the coverage in the paper and they would state facts in the case that NEVER happened. It was astounding. A scientist would say a test was inconclusive and then the news would report it matched OJs blood. Smh
Sorry that was a miss on my part - it was the alleged *purchase* of the murder weapon that was inadmissible.
The DNA match, which of course only several years ago yielded a more definitive match, with just a 1 in 1 million chave it wasn’t his blood. Then his crazy changing alibis - absolutely nuts the number of stories that were spun up.
Again, this would have been a slam dunk case if it was some random Joe.
But do share your theories
https://famous-trials.com/simpson/1857-evidencehttps://abcnews.go.com/US/oj-simpson-tapes-shocking-things-rarely-deposition-tapes/story?id=33924968
Please leave this alone. What part of no murder weapon was found do you not understand? Yes, a knife was found years later but there is no evidence showing it was the murder weapon. This 1 in a million chance it wasn’t his blood is also a lie. C’mon dude get your facts straight. This time I really am done. This is a Trump thread.
https://people.com/celebrity/no-dna-is-found-on-knife-discovered-on-o-j-simpsons-property-police/No one cares what I think, ha ha, but agip & ciro, yes, I will vote for even for biden or buttigieg if they are the nominee. As 4 trump, that son of a bi+ch must pay.
Smorbun wrote:
What do Trump and the Houston Astros have in common?
Both cheaters.
Both have Sally as a rabid fan.
Conclusion = Sally loves cheaters.
Actually, I am very much against cheaters and am surprised that there is not more talk of stripping the Astros of their 2017 World Series championship. I would even be okay with that. Or even just vacate the championship for that year. I am extremely anti-cheating and that is why I would never vote for Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or the rest of those cheaters admission into the Hall of Fame. Never.
As far as cheating in the 2016 presidential election, Robert Mueller already and quite emphatically confirmed that there was no cheating/collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. In fact, the only cheating/collusion that occurred in 2016 was between the Hillary campaign and the DNC/Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (can she really not do anything with her hair?). That cheated Bernie Sanders out of a possible nomination. Hillary also cheated with paying for the Steele Dossier on Trump. Yes, the real cheaters in 2016 were Hillary, her campaign, the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. But you Dems had/have no problem supporting a chronic cheater.
Immoderate wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
What do Trump and the Houston Astros have in common?
Both cheaters.
Both have Sally as a rabid fan.
Conclusion = Sally loves cheaters.
Sally also craves to be rich like Trump. She would give up her health, well being, family and friends, and would accept having to pay some to wipe her butt, as long as she was rich and famous.
Trump is a Thousandaire in reality. A Billionaire only in Trump Fantasyland.
Well, how interesting that you know more about Trump's wealth than Forbes magazine, on of the finest financial magazines of American history. Mr. Immoderate here just pronounced that he knows more about Trump's wealth than even Forbes, who pegs Trump's wealth at more than $3 BILLION. Some NOBODY on here knows more than all the professionals at Forbes magazine. I haven't chuckled so hard in years!
Trollminator wrote:
The Burghh wrote:
I know I said I was done with this but you are a perfect example of people putting out misinformation. You said “The murder weapon was inadmissible in court because it was discussed on TV”. Where did you hear that nonsense.? THE MURDER WEAPON WAS NEVER FOUND. That’s the kind of stuff that happened during the trial. I would watch the trial on tv then watch the coverage on evening news or read the coverage in the paper and they would state facts in the case that NEVER happened. It was astounding. A scientist would say a test was inconclusive and then the news would report it matched OJs blood. Smh
Sorry that was a miss on my part - it was the alleged *purchase* of the murder weapon that was inadmissible.
The DNA match, which of course only several years ago yielded a more definitive match, with just a 1 in 1 million chave it wasn’t his blood. Then his crazy changing alibis - absolutely nuts the number of stories that were spun up.
Again, this would have been a slam dunk case if it was some random Joe.
But do share your theories
https://famous-trials.com/simpson/1857-evidencehttps://abcnews.go.com/US/oj-simpson-tapes-shocking-things-rarely-deposition-tapes/story?id=33924968
The ignorance is great with this one.
Ciro wrote:
agip wrote:
I will work on it. But I’m more a critic than an artist.
Anyway, Bberg no doubt entered this race to raise the game of Dem advertising. This stuff.
https://twitter.com/mikebloomberg/status/1228755924115955712?s=21Agip, for what it’s worth I always find your posts clear and easy to follow.
Bloomberg might be the only Dem that can beat Trump since he can match his sleaziness.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Immoderate wrote:
A criminal referral is not conviction. It was referred to Barr.
Now if want talk about a wrong prediction then look no further than the ?pole.
Avenatti isn't coming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/michael-avenatti-nike-convicted.html#click=https://t.co/lYCnHdTcyT
Does this mean Flagpole is NOT campaigning for Avenetti for POTOS now?
Smorbun wrote:
Charges against McCabe dropped. Just another big prediction that Rigged got wrong. Now Barr is showing signs of disgust with Trump too. Trump was impeached, McCabe is not going to face any punishment, and there will be no 'Barr Tab' that Rigged said again and again. Loser.
I know some here think Sally is the dumbest poster here, and it is a close race, but Rigged wins that, and man, that's saying something, because Sally is a dolt.
There is a distinct race to the bottom on this thread by many (including you).