Skip to main content

Bestworking posted:
jtdavis posted:

Anyone remember Michelle Obama? How many miles has she racked up flying her Mother, cousins, and friends all over the world on vacations? How about it JT, remember her? How is that different?

Gifted, your only defense is, "yer ole man does too".  All y'all, you can't defend Bentley, try to show someone else that done it.

Jt, let me ask you something. Why does Gifted or anyone else need a "defense"? What have they done? She asked a perfectly legitimate question, you have no answer, so you start mumbling the "so's yer old man" mantra. Again, you look daft.

Yes Jt, why do I need a defense? Please explain.

Bestworking posted:

Why won't you answer her jt. Why does she need a defense? Who's trying to defend Bentley? Show the posts in defense of Bentley, then explain WHY people are not allowed to discuss democrats, but you are allowed to discuss Bentley?

___

Please advise as to who or what is not allowing people to discuss Democrats.

YOU, for one, frequently discuss and disparage Democrats.  Are you not a "people"?  

Why won't you answer her jt. Why does she need a defense? Who's trying to defend Bentley? Show the posts in defense of Bentley, then explain WHY people are not allowed to discuss democrats, but you are allowed to discuss Bentley?

The post was about Bentley's indiscretions. No one came to his defense, only listed some democrat sins. There was no posts in defense of Bentley. If I have ever tried to prevent you from discussing democrats sins, it didn't work. Back to why she needs a defense, it would be nice if some of you that elected and reelected Bentley would defend him.

jtdavis posted:

Why won't you answer her jt. Why does she need a defense? Who's trying to defend Bentley? Show the posts in defense of Bentley, then explain WHY people are not allowed to discuss democrats, but you are allowed to discuss Bentley?

The post was about Bentley's indiscretions. No one came to his defense, only listed some democrat sins. There was no posts in defense of Bentley. If I have ever tried to prevent you from discussing democrats sins, it didn't work. Back to why she needs a defense, it would be nice if some of you that elected and reelected Bentley would defend him.

You said I had no defense, now you're crawfishing.

jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

__________________________________________

It is YOU who have answered predictably, dire, with attempted  but failed cleverness.

jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

With a good vocabulary, I understood all you stated.  If, you can't recall your own posts, that's just another symptom of your decline.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

With a good vocabulary, I understood all you stated.  If, you can't recall your own posts, that's just another symptom of your decline.

____

An interesting new form of deflection from your disordered mind.  The post you refer to is one in an entirely different thread, and it is not any matter of my failure to recall anything in particular.  it is a matter of those who repeatedly, and now desperately, insist that the post that they will not produce includes certain material that supposedly incriminates me  in some vaguely defined way.   Never in the several years long period of my participation here have I seen such total failure to produce documentation upon which the validity of criticism absolutely depends.  

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

With a good vocabulary, I understood all you stated.  If, you can't recall your own posts, that's just another symptom of your decline.

____

An interesting new form of deflection from your disordered mind.  The post you refer to is one in an entirely different thread, and it is not any matter of my failure to recall anything in particular.  it is a matter of those who repeatedly, and now desperately, insist that the post that they will not produce includes certain material that supposedly incriminates me  in some vaguely defined way.   Never in the several years long period of my participation here have I seen such total failure to produce documentation upon which the validity of criticism absolutely depends.  

I see that with effort you finally remembered the threads I referred to -- good, your mental slide is not as bad as feared.  I provide links to everything of importance I post.  However, not always to the threads/posts of persons on this forum.  One assumes that people should remember their own work. 

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

With a good vocabulary, I understood all you stated.  If, you can't recall your own posts, that's just another symptom of your decline.

____

An interesting new form of deflection from your disordered mind.  The post you refer to is one in an entirely different thread, and it is not any matter of my failure to recall anything in particular.  it is a matter of those who repeatedly, and now desperately, insist that the post that they will not produce includes certain material that supposedly incriminates me  in some vaguely defined way.   Never in the several years long period of my participation here have I seen such total failure to produce documentation upon which the validity of criticism absolutely depends.  

I see that with effort you finally remembered the threads I referred to -- good, your mental slide is not as bad as feared.  I provide links to everything of importance I post.  However, not always to the threads/posts of persons on this forum.  One assumes that people should remember their own work. 

___

I simply noted that the un-produced post from the unidentified topic is somewhere other than in THIS thread, which is obvious. I have made it clear elsewhere that I am aware that a post (not "threads"--a thread consists of the entire discussion under a given topic; seems you should have learned that long ago) supposedly containing  a particular critique on my part is being referred to by those who are unable or unwilling to serve it up as the sole focus of their criticism.  It is long past the time for them to  PRODUCE the subject of their scorn or to simply shut up and acknowledge their polemical ineptitude. Making yourself an ally of such disordered and inept disputants does your already knee-jerky, rancorous reputation no favor.

Last edited by Contendahh
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

With a good vocabulary, I understood all you stated.  If, you can't recall your own posts, that's just another symptom of your decline.

____

An interesting new form of deflection from your disordered mind.  The post you refer to is one in an entirely different thread, and it is not any matter of my failure to recall anything in particular.  it is a matter of those who repeatedly, and now desperately, insist that the post that they will not produce includes certain material that supposedly incriminates me  in some vaguely defined way.   Never in the several years long period of my participation here have I seen such total failure to produce documentation upon which the validity of criticism absolutely depends.  

I see that with effort you finally remembered the threads I referred to -- good, your mental slide is not as bad as feared.  I provide links to everything of importance I post.  However, not always to the threads/posts of persons on this forum.  One assumes that people should remember their own work. 

He remembers them, but he doesn't want to own them. He's so deceitful that he actually said Best accused HIM of making a thread, when from the beginning she said she had made the thread in response to his ugly thread about Mrs. Carson. He just lies and spams.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

With a good vocabulary, I understood all you stated.  If, you can't recall your own posts, that's just another symptom of your decline.

____

An interesting new form of deflection from your disordered mind.  The post you refer to is one in an entirely different thread, and it is not any matter of my failure to recall anything in particular.  it is a matter of those who repeatedly, and now desperately, insist that the post that they will not produce includes certain material that supposedly incriminates me  in some vaguely defined way.   Never in the several years long period of my participation here have I seen such total failure to produce documentation upon which the validity of criticism absolutely depends.  

I see that with effort you finally remembered the threads I referred to -- good, your mental slide is not as bad as feared.  I provide links to everything of importance I post.  However, not always to the threads/posts of persons on this forum.  One assumes that people should remember their own work. 

___

I simply noted that the un-produced post from the unidentified topic is somewhere other than in THIS thread, which is obvious. I have made it clear elsewhere that I am aware that a post (not "threads"--a thread consists of the entire discussion under a given topic; seems you should have learned that long ago) supposedly containing  a particular critique on my part is being referred to by those who are unable or unwilling to serve it up as the sole focus of their criticism.  I used the term threads/post to differentiate between the two.  Why would I use two words with a slash as the same thing? It is long past the time for them to  PRODUCE the subject of their scorn or to simply shut up and acknowledge their polemical ineptitude. Making yourself an ally of such disordered and inept disputants does your already knee-jerky, rancorous reputation no favor.  I was answering a comment you directed towards myself, nothing else.  Having more problems I see.

 

giftedamateur posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

With a good vocabulary, I understood all you stated.  If, you can't recall your own posts, that's just another symptom of your decline.

____

An interesting new form of deflection from your disordered mind.  The post you refer to is one in an entirely different thread, and it is not any matter of my failure to recall anything in particular.  it is a matter of those who repeatedly, and now desperately, insist that the post that they will not produce includes certain material that supposedly incriminates me  in some vaguely defined way.   Never in the several years long period of my participation here have I seen such total failure to produce documentation upon which the validity of criticism absolutely depends.  

I see that with effort you finally remembered the threads I referred to -- good, your mental slide is not as bad as feared.  I provide links to everything of importance I post.  However, not always to the threads/posts of persons on this forum.  One assumes that people should remember their own work. 

He remembers them, but he doesn't want to own them. He's so deceitful that he actually said Best accused HIM of making a thread, when from the beginning she said she had made the thread in response to his ugly thread about Mrs. Carson. He just lies and spams.

___

You are badly confused.  It is the alleged "ugly thread" that is the subject of this issue and the sub-issue is  the refusal or inability of those who assert that it contains inappropriate content from me to PRODUCE the thread and make their case with something other than unsubstantiated accusations.  If it is as they say, they should be able to search it up and use it to make their case.

Contendahh posted:
giftedamateur posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

With a good vocabulary, I understood all you stated.  If, you can't recall your own posts, that's just another symptom of your decline.

____

An interesting new form of deflection from your disordered mind.  The post you refer to is one in an entirely different thread, and it is not any matter of my failure to recall anything in particular.  it is a matter of those who repeatedly, and now desperately, insist that the post that they will not produce includes certain material that supposedly incriminates me  in some vaguely defined way.   Never in the several years long period of my participation here have I seen such total failure to produce documentation upon which the validity of criticism absolutely depends.  

I see that with effort you finally remembered the threads I referred to -- good, your mental slide is not as bad as feared.  I provide links to everything of importance I post.  However, not always to the threads/posts of persons on this forum.  One assumes that people should remember their own work. 

He remembers them, but he doesn't want to own them. He's so deceitful that he actually said Best accused HIM of making a thread, when from the beginning she said she had made the thread in response to his ugly thread about Mrs. Carson. He just lies and spams.

___

You are badly confused.  It is the alleged "ugly thread" that is the subject of this issue and the sub-issue is  the refusal or inability of those who assert that it contains inappropriate content from me to PRODUCE the thread and make their case with something other than unsubstantiated accusations.  If it is as they say, they should be able to search it up and use it to make their case.

You're completely confused now.  I was not a participant in that imbroglio.  Please proceed to chase your tail.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
giftedamateur posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Condie answered pretty much as I expected.  Although, I thought he might use words that proved he swallowed a thesaurus. No, JT, that's not a type of dinosaur.

Do what you can to keep me up to date.

"Thesaurus"??!! Just which of my words of more than one syllable do you regard as arcane or obscure? Methinks the matter is not so much my use of a thesaurus  as your vocabulary deficiencies!

With a good vocabulary, I understood all you stated.  If, you can't recall your own posts, that's just another symptom of your decline.

____

An interesting new form of deflection from your disordered mind.  The post you refer to is one in an entirely different thread, and it is not any matter of my failure to recall anything in particular.  it is a matter of those who repeatedly, and now desperately, insist that the post that they will not produce includes certain material that supposedly incriminates me  in some vaguely defined way.   Never in the several years long period of my participation here have I seen such total failure to produce documentation upon which the validity of criticism absolutely depends.  

I see that with effort you finally remembered the threads I referred to -- good, your mental slide is not as bad as feared.  I provide links to everything of importance I post.  However, not always to the threads/posts of persons on this forum.  One assumes that people should remember their own work. 

He remembers them, but he doesn't want to own them. He's so deceitful that he actually said Best accused HIM of making a thread, when from the beginning she said she had made the thread in response to his ugly thread about Mrs. Carson. He just lies and spams.

___

You are badly confused.  It is the alleged "ugly thread" that is the subject of this issue and the sub-issue is  the refusal or inability of those who assert that it contains inappropriate content from me to PRODUCE the thread and make their case with something other than unsubstantiated accusations.  If it is as they say, they should be able to search it up and use it to make their case.

You're completely confused now.  I was not a participant in that imbroglio.  Please proceed to chase your tail.

____

Your confusion and lack of comprehension continue.  I DID NOT allege that YOU were a participant. Read my comment again and read it without the baggage of illogical and irrelevant preconceptions, and you will see that I made no such allegation.  If you should continue to be so dense that you disagree, then kindly SHOW ME where I made such.

direstraits posted:

As to Condie posting a thread on Dr. Carson's wife as rather unattractive, I do remember that. 

____

Then YOU dig out the old moldy post and provide it for the benefit of the quarrelsome, demanding incompetents who claim to know about it and what it says, but who utterly fail to produce it.

And for the record, yes, she is a rather unattractive woman.  I have no reluctance to call 'em as I see 'em. Anyone on here willing to claim she is an attractive woman?

Last edited by Contendahh

For those who continually demand that I produce a post that I allegedly made concerning Mrs. Carson, I provide this example of how documentation should be provided to substantiate critical assertions made  in this forum.

Let's say, for example, that I wish to state that Bestworking, the forum's resident absolutist excoriater, has used harsh language to criticize Hilary Clinton.  By no means should I make such an accusation without providing proof.  Thus, I go to the search feature and I find my proof, as follows in the verbatim excerpt below (note highlight):   

A woman trying to ride her cheating husband's affairs and bjs into the oval office, presidential material? Pftttttttttttt. THAT'S the dog that won't hunt. I'd say he's as much or more "presidential material as the hag that thinks she's owed the highest office in the country because she didn't kick her cheating, low down, POS husband out.

______________________________________

Those accusing me of being critical of Ms. Carson should follow this model to make their case.  The mystery remains why they will not do so. 

Last edited by Contendahh
jtdavis posted:

Gifted, did you vote for him? if so, you have no defense of his behavior?

Did you vote for Clinton?  Did you vote for Obama? Which cheating crook Democrat will you be voting for this time? Will it be another crooked Clinton or a raging mad man? What did you do after you heard about Monica? You lefties defended him. Even his harpy wife defended him. You need to stop worrying about Alabama and clean up your own party and state. Bentley will be dealt with. Clinton got away with it scot free. The Clintons always get away with it, and here you come spouting off about Bentley.

 

 

 

Contendahh posted:

For those who continually demand that I produce a post that I allegedly made concerning Mrs. Carson, I provide this example of how documentation should be provided to substantiate critical assertions made  in this forum.

Let's say, for example, that I wish to state that Bestworking, the forum's resident absolutist excoriater, has used harsh language to criticize Hilary Clinton.  By no means should I make such an accusation without providing proof.  Thus, I go to the search feature and I find my proof, as follows in the verbatim excerpt below (note highlight):   

A woman trying to ride her cheating husband's affairs and bjs into the oval office, presidential material? Pftttttttttttt. THAT'S the dog that won't hunt. I'd say he's as much or more "presidential material as the hag that thinks she's owed the highest office in the country because she didn't kick her cheating, low down, POS husband out.

______________________________________

Those accusing me of being critical of Ms. Carson should follow this model to make their case.  The mystery remains why they will not do so. 

*********************

 

Old dude, we're not in court. I don't know if you did something with the thread or not, but the way you're blowing I'd bet you have. I'm not digging for it. I saw your thread when you posted it, and I am not a liar, but you are. I mentioned your thread when you had the nerve to post yours about how spouses shouldn't be attacked. Also, you lied about Best when you said she accused you of making a thread about Sander's wife. You ignored proof showing she didn't do that. You think you are slick, but you're just slimy.

 

Last edited by giftedamateur

The biggest reason one should vote for a republican candidate is the fact that they can be removed if they are caught doing something illegal. With dems passing out free stuff and influence to their crony capitalists, union bosses, and the entitlement sector; these folks will decide whether they stay or go: 

Good, about time you shut up, you racist, pompous, blowhard prig. You posted it, you know you posted it, people couldn't have forgotten you posted it, I posted one on sander's wife and bill clinton afterwards and I posted pics of michelle on your thread without one of her wigs and without her make-up, and mentioned the three hairs on her head, but go ahead beternnun, deny you did it. Just like the other trick you tried to pull. You are deceitful and everyone knows it.

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/t...5#491073019699616495

Proof you lied.

 

===================================

A woman trying to ride her cheating husband's affairs and bjs into the oval office, presidential material? Pftttttttttttt. THAT'S the dog that won't hunt. I'd say he's as much or more "presidential material as the hag that thinks she's owed the highest office in the country because she didn't kick her cheating, low down, POS husband out.

=========

What's your point? I meant what I posted, then and now. I've even posted worse about her, all true, and I meant that too. And, hilLIARy is running for office, Mrs. Carson isn't.

Did you vote for Clinton?  Did you vote for Obama? 

I voted for both and i will defend both of them's job preformance.

Democrats must continually attack Republicans for the slightest thing.  Its called misdirection -- to take the public eye away from the mountain of dirt they produce.

both sides do it, and it's not just dirt, it's the worst slime and mud. This election, the truth don't seem to come into play.

giftedamateur posted:
Contendahh posted:

For those who continually demand that I produce a post that I allegedly made concerning Mrs. Carson, I provide this example of how documentation should be provided to substantiate critical assertions made  in this forum.

Let's say, for example, that I wish to state that Bestworking, the forum's resident absolutist excoriater, has used harsh language to criticize Hilary Clinton.  By no means should I make such an accusation without providing proof.  Thus, I go to the search feature and I find my proof, as follows in the verbatim excerpt below (note highlight):   

A woman trying to ride her cheating husband's affairs and bjs into the oval office, presidential material? Pftttttttttttt. THAT'S the dog that won't hunt. I'd say he's as much or more "presidential material as the hag that thinks she's owed the highest office in the country because she didn't kick her cheating, low down, POS husband out.

______________________________________

Those accusing me of being critical of Ms. Carson should follow this model to make their case.  The mystery remains why they will not do so. 

*********************

 

Old dude, we're not in court. I don't know if you did something with the thread or not, but the way you're blowing I'd bet you have. I'm not digging for it. I saw your thread when you posted it, and I am not a liar, but you are. I mentioned your thread when you had the nerve to post yours about how spouses shouldn't be attacked. Also, you lied about Best when you said she accused you of making a thread about Sander's wife. You ignored proof showing she didn't do that. You think you are slick, but you're just slimy.

______________________________________

Like all too many others, you are too quick to identify a simple mistake as a lie.  Look up the definition of "lie" and get yourself educated. I did nothing with the comment I posted except to post it. It was not a "thread" by the way.  A thread consists of all the comments on a given topic.  Get your forum vocabulary straightened out. I have frankly acknowledged that a comment on Carson's wife is the correct subject of the ongoing discussion.  That is settled, so let's move on.

What is being ignored here is the simple criterion that says criticism should be substantiated by fact, evidence, or documentation; otherwise it is demoted to the realm of opinion. Opinions are cheap and those who will not put up the goods to defend their opinions are cheap shot artists. There is nothing "slimy" about insisting on substantiation. 

 

 

giftedamateur posted:

I totally agree with Best's post about Hillary. BTW old dude, you misspelled her name. It's *Hillary*, not *Hilary*.

____

My surprise at reading that you agree with BEST is of about  the same degree of surprise I experience when I see the Sun rise in the east each morning.

BTW, the name of our next President is indeed Hillary; it is not,  as BEST constantly abuses it, "hilLIARy."

Last edited by Contendahh
jtdavis posted:

Did you vote for Clinton?  Did you vote for Obama? 

I voted for both and i will defend both of them's job preformance.

Democrats must continually attack Republicans for the slightest thing.  Its called misdirection -- to take the public eye away from the mountain of dirt they produce.

both sides do it, and it's not just dirt, it's the worst slime and mud. This election, the truth don't seem to come into play.

I don't think you need to be "running your mouth" about Bentley. You have enough problems with the POS you voted for, and keep voting for. Slime and mud? You love it. The dirtier a demoslop is, the more you like them. Hey beternnun, you misspelled the hag hillary's name!!

Don't "worr;" about it beternnun. Well beternnun, hilLIARy is the correct and accepted spelling of the liar's name when used to describe her. You know, like you call Mitch McConnell the turtle man all the time. Just like you made a thread making fun of a woman's looks. I still say I bet anything you have nothing to brag about yourself. You can't stand it! You just want to run amok and not be called on anything! Just like you tried to set me up and got caught, just like you tried to belittle me over a misspelling and misspelled the misspelling! Just like all the mistakes you make all the time, just like you call others racists and then call me a half-breed (thanks for that btw, you showed your true colors) nah, nah, nah, nah, betternun can't stand to get his **** handed back to him!!

Bestworking posted:

Don't "worr;" about it beternnun. Well beternnun, hilLIARy is the correct and accepted spelling of the liar's name when used to describe her. You know, like you call Mitch McConnell the turtle man all the time. Just like you made a thread making fun of a woman's looks. I still say I bet anything you have nothing to brag about yourself. You can't stand it! You just want to run amok and not be called on anything! Just like you tried to set me up and got caught, just like you tried to belittle me over a misspelling and misspelled the misspelling! Just like all the mistakes you make all the time, just like you call others racists and then call me a half-breed (thanks for that btw, you showed your true colors) nah, nah, nah, nah, betternun can't stand to get his **** handed back to him!!

___

"correct and accepted" by hateful,name-calling, absolutist, foul-minded harridans!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×