UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's the other way around.Why would 2 democrats align themselves with Paul
it's the other way around.Why would 2 democrats align themselves with Paul
OK, so he aligned himself with them. Then why would 2 democrats allow themselves to be aligned with Paul on this, if they didn't feel he was their equal partner? Or at least a deserving partner?it's the other way around.
they have no choice you dullard.why would 2 democrats allow themselves to be aligned with Paul on this
Name calling, so early in the evening Buck?they have no choice you dullard.
that was not name calling, it was an apt description.Name calling, so early in the evening Buck?
You're showing your bias toward anything right of center Buck, by refusing to give any credit at all to a conservative who deserves it; albeit just in this case.that was not name calling, it was an apt description.
i don't get mad when people call me tall, because i am tall.
deal with it, murdoch.
wut?refusing to give any credit at all to a conservative who deserves it
I'm very disappointed Buck that I'm not in your signature quotes.wut?
"The main thing I've said is not to legalize" - rend pawl
you're as delusional as any of the rest though, murdoch.I'm very disappointed Buck that I'm not in your signature quotes.
Maybe you're right, sir. Maybe Paul just tagged himself along like a fucking leach. But that's not what was reported in the mainstream news stories I read.@TBoneJack - Actually, Rendy Pawl is the one doing the [re]aligning. The representatives of the people, the 2 Democrats, wrote a bill that would benefit the good of the people, and Rendy recognized an opportunity to potentially get "swing" votes, that's all. The Democrats are not dropping the bill because of some stupid political squabble, thats a Republican thing to do. Maybe this concept is a little over your head?
finally you get it, murdoch.Paul just tagged himself along like a fucking leach.
Nice job of partially quoting me, Buck. You should have been a lawyer. You would have done well...finally you get it, murdoch.
as a RIU internet lawyer, i honestly feel you should agree to put yourself on trial for the charge of serial sock puppetry and agree to be judged by a RIU jury of your RIU peers.Nice job of partially quoting me, Buck. You should have been a lawyer. You would have done well...
So you wanna rig up some tribunal against me in advance and expect me to agree to a "fair trial"?as a RIU internet lawyer, i honestly feel you should agree to put yourself on trial for the charge of serial sock puppetry and agree to be judged by a RIU jury of your RIU peers.
if you are found guilty of serial sock puppetry, you get banned.
the evidence against you is overwhelming, and you know this.
do you agree?
So you wanna rig up some tribunal against me in advance and expect me to agree to a "fair trial"?
Let's see, a jury of you and pin and abandon and travis and sky and see4 and ... yeah, right.
you would be allowed to assist in your own defense, which has so far consisted of "NUH UH!" and not much else.So you wanna rig up some tribunal against me in advance and expect me to agree to a "fair trial"?
Let's see, a jury of you and pin and abandon and travis and sky and see4 and ... yeah, right.
My defense is impeccable sir. Consistent and impeccable.you would be allowed to assist in your own defense, which has so far consisted of "NUH UH!" and not much else.
why do you have the exact same rhetoric as all of these previous sock puppets identified with the murdoch account then?My defense is impeccable sir. Consistent and impeccable.