Posted on 01/06/2009 11:52:38 AM PST by Kevmo
So you’re a Show Me troll. Read Polarik’s reports.
Plenty disagree but not all are trolls. Feel free to find the FR definition of Troll and see if it applies to you.
There has been a rash of that lately.
I’ve been here long enough to know the definition of troll...so no worries.
***Well, then, troll — since you’re a Show Me troll and all that — show us where the definition is.
The question is why can’t you refute an argument with people who disagree with you without the insults and rage?
***I have refuted them. Again and again. After the 2nd “again”, I’m dealing with a troll. That’s you, trollboy. I challenged another troll to sign up again with FR using the same exact questions but dropping the troll tone & attitude and they’d see a completely different response from us. Naturally, that other troll declined. It’s in the nature of trolls to not want to go through such a valid self-discovery exercise. Interestingly, that other troll says that he does this for entertainment, but he won’t do that for the entertainment value... proving he’s a lying troll... which we all knew in the first place.
There has been a rash of that lately.
***There has been a rash of CoLB trolls lately.
Seal is on the back...
***Yup. And the seal shown by factcheck.org is a forgery. At least they got it right that they showed it on the back. So address the issue rather than try to deflect, like a troll.
It is my opinion that if SCOTUS had serious intentions, they would not wait this long.
***You didn’t even read the post to you, let alone the other thread. You haven’t been keeping up with the reading. There was an article about how Berg would have standing against Obama once a quantifiable damage has been done and that means he’s pres-elect. Also, the 20th amendment, which you so proudly love to overlook as a troll.
In the Gore/Bush situation, they issued an emergency stay almost immediately.
***That’s because there was fraud in the vote counting. This case alleges fraud in the eligibility. The 20th amendment states, “if the PE fails to qualify”, so it wouldn’t even come into effect until there is a PE. My expectation is that you’ll just breeze right over this argument and say something like you already said, “my opinion is...” What a bunch of hogwash.
The second date 1-16-98 is very telling...four days before the inauguration.
***The second date is not very telling. See how arguments from silence work?
I do not believe SCOTUS will do anything. I’ve watched the court for years...fascinating.
***Many of us might share your belief, but your activity in trying to discourage and dismay those who are in the fight makes you a despicable troll. This is a constitutionalist website discussing a constitutional issue and the first sentence of JimRob’s statement to everyone is about defending the constitution. I don’t see you doing that. I see you being a simple troll.
They don’t like to get involved in elections first of all which is why everyone was surprised in 2000.
***They have a job to do.
I just don’t see it happening.
***So what? That does not explain your actions as a troll. You do not know what will happen, just like you didn’t foresee them getting involved in 2000. What you’re engaged in is an extended fallacy of arguing from silence. Knock it off, troll.
I have no crystal ball,
***Then STFU
but I would be very surprised...
***Just like you were in 2000, so STFU until then. Your activity is beyond someone who “would be surprised”, it is the activity of a provocateur.
Now I thought in December it was a possibility, but we saw how that was handled.
***Once again you have failed to read the 20th amendment, proving you are a troll.
There may be. There are also folks who just plain disagree. Some can't distinguish the two.
You ought to be more careful about drag and paste of Axelrod’s talking points. The one you posted deals with naturalization leading to citizenship. This is a no no when natural born is at issue. But then you obamanopid trolls don’t appear all that bright, so keep up the bad work. ... But wipe the brown off of your nose, and use soap and warm water ‘cause there’s a sewer stench to it.
Not quite what I said. There is no rule restricting Supreme Court cases to certain lawyers, and they do sometimes hear cases filed by unknowns. But certain lawyers carry enormous clout with the Supreme Court. The chances of getting a cert. petition granted are way higher if it is filed by, say, Ken Starr or Larry Tribe, than if I file it (and I'm an appellate lawyer with 30 years of experience). The fact that none of the distinguished Supreme Court lawyers-- liberal or conservative-- has shown any interest in these cases will, to some extent, suggest to the Justices that there really isn't a serious issue here.
There are also folks who just plain disagree. Some can’t distinguish the two.
***It’s easy. Trolls admit they get “entertainment” from throwing bombs on issues like this. Trolls disregard facts that have been posted directly to them when they continue to spout talking points straight from DU. Trolls like to insist that the burden of proving a negative is on us rather than the burden of proving eligibility is on the candidate, like the constitution says. Trolls use logical fallacies right and left, and don’t bother to correct the usage. There are other distinctions, I’m sure, but those are the ones I use.
I’d like to see your viewpoint on this.
Then you are the exception, not the rule.
Then you are the exception, not the rule.
***Thanks for the validation. LJ has a list of 25 or so CoLB trolls. If the certifiGate threads were to see an end to their trolling, you’d see polite disagreements, a few new trolls, basically a better level of dialogue. And those who have been called trolls can do something about it on an individual level (besides just stop being a FReepin’ troll). They can sign up again under a different name, drop the attitude and see if their questions get answered. Most of them won’t do such a thing, and even if they did I would guess they’d have trouble not succumbing to the temptation to be a troll again. When they get a fact posted to them that they don’t like and they disregard it, they’ve taken another step, yet again, into trollhood.
That came of an official US website-probably where Axelrod got them. Anyway, I won’t post anymore on this subject. I only manage to annoy you. We just can’t discuss this I guess...I’ll read the posts and wait to see what happens. Believe it or not, it is not my intention to annoy your.
I won’t post again on this subject. It is obvious a dissenting opinion can not be tolerated in this instance. I merely state an opinion-nothing more. I will be watching with interest. I like a spirited discussion, but I weary of the rudeness and name calling...so continue posting to those who agree with you- this is obviously your desire.
Yeah, I’m not posting on these threads anymore. I like to have interesting conversations as my posts on all subjects indicate, but I don’t call people names. I like people who disagree and enjoy the conversation. However, this is silly. They obviously want to contrary opinions.
Thanks, I am not insulted actually. If I misread your post, I am sorry. It was in the middle of some truly insulting, rude posts. I love a good argument and would not take offense...mea culpa, mea culpa. Feel free to discuss this anytime with me...again sorry for being so prickly.
Which is why there has never been a back-side COLB scan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.