Thread: On the level?

Is this guy, pi, for real? Can anyone really be this simple?

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by piwanoi

More bollocks from Panama twat

Can you prove that? Where is the evidenciary standard that you like to hold all other posters to?

Originally Posted by piwanoi

So according to you then all the articles in my post #44 are just garbage without a figment of truth in them, which in reality fully endorses the article in my OP ,and BTW whenever has the truth been regarded as garbage ? but of course if yourself or others have solid proof that the article in the OP and the articles in my post #44 are a crock of shit by all means produce it , but then again non of you can and that is what is eating at you ,you do not agree and yet you cannot prove me wrong can you?

Can you verify, irrefutably, that the info in the OP is correct?
Are you in contacr with the Obama family lawyers?

You have been advised by a number of posters that the information in the OP is of spurious origin. If you don't believe them, ny all means do your research and prove them wrong.

They know what they know and are under no obligation to provide you with proof of their beliefs. If you disagree, get off your idle bar stool and do your own work, you lazy muppet.

Were did I ever say that the whole article was correct? I merely asked a question , can you or others verify irrefutably that it,s not the truth?,a straight yes or no will suffice quite nicely thanks as for the Divorce? no one can prove one way or the other that the info in the OP is not correct and thats why I asked others opinions if they thought it was "on the level" or not, the many articles in my post#44 proves that all of it is not a total fabrication , I do not have to prove anything, you lot do and this is what is eating you lot away to the point of paranoia , meanwhile you can fart ,piss, laugh or cry for all I care ,

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Is this guy, pi, for real? Can anyone really be this simple?

Still claiming the Fifth amendment I see

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Hey Koojo you might all these articles which add credence to the article in the OP about Michelle Obama's lavish spending of tax payers money on Junkets ,and of course you could do like most of the others do , completely ignore them and pretend that they do not exist https://www.google.com/#q=++New+York+times+mentions+Michelle+Obama's+lavi sh+spending+

I thought the article in question was the getting a divorce one. As other posters have mentioned, anything from that source should be taken with a grain of salt, which I,m doing. The overspending thing is an altogether different topic/issue is it not?

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Hey Koojo you might all these articles which add credence to the article in the OP about Michelle Obama's lavish spending of tax payers money on Junkets ,and of course you could do like most of the others do , completely ignore them and pretend that they do not exist https://www.google.com/#q=++New+York+times+mentions+Michelle+Obama's+lavi sh+spending+

I thought the article in question was the getting a divorce one. As other posters have mentioned, anything from that source should be taken with a grain of salt, which I,m doing. The overspending thing is an altogether different topic/issue is it not?

Total bollocks , obviously you have not took 5 minutes of your precious time to read the article in the OP , as the old adage said thought pissed in bed and thought he was sweating

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by Necron99

I think the consensus view here Pi, what you can take away, is
a) that only an idiot would think that an "article" from the National Inquirer is worthy of discussion as to it's merits on any level and,
b) No one really gives a fuck if O&M get divorced.


It's just like when you post paid for opinion pieces or advertorials as factual content, or when you tried to kick it off with an clip of an actor reading lines. You just don't get what makes an valid or interesting subject for debate.

If you had read the article in the OP you would plainly see its not just about divorce .

Why would anyone read beyond a headline in the national enquirer?

Originally Posted by Koojo

thought the article in question was the getting a divorce one.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Total bollocks

Title of National Enquirer gossip:

EXCLUSIVE: MICHELLE WALKS OUT AS OBAMA DIVORCE BATTLE EXPLODES!

Piwi's digging a hole for himself with a backhoe.....

What's the difference between, The Editor of The Daily Mail, The Editor of The National Enquirer and an article from Piwiannoy?

Piwiannoy thinks his articles are true.


NB Lack of cheap ineffective smiley.

Originally Posted by chassamui

What's the difference between, The Editor of The Daily Mail, The Editor of The National Enquirer and an article from Piwiannoy?

Piwiannoy thinks his articles are true.


NB Lack of cheap ineffective smiley.

If you think they are fictitious why not prove it , and I see no one has mentioned all the other articles in my post #44 which add credence to the article in the OP , keep trying sunshine but sorry no cigar , and why not have a go at Gilbert, he is quite convinced (as I am) that Michelle Obama spent a packet of tax payers money on her China Junket?, but hey lets face it we both know you ain't got the guts

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Hey Koojo you might all these articles which add credence to the article in the OP about Michelle Obama's lavish spending of tax payers money on Junkets ,and of course you could do like most of the others do , completely ignore them and pretend that they do not exist https://www.google.com/#q=++New+York+times+mentions+Michelle+Obama's+lavi sh+spending+

I thought the article in question was the getting a divorce one. As other posters have mentioned, anything from that source should be taken with a grain of salt, which I,m doing. The overspending thing is an altogether different topic/issue is it not?

Total bollocks , obviously you have not took 5 minutes of your precious time to read the article in the OP ,

Nope,why would anyone read beyond the headline in that rag.

So you think its a load of tripe and you ain't read it? , hey nice one , of course you could read all the articles in my post#44 which fully endorses most of what is in the article in the OP ,but you won't do that either , maybe its a "face thing" with you lot to admit you are all wrong .

Just another article which Complains about Michelle Obama's lavish spending of tax payers money ,which was portrayed in my OP and of course rubbished , even by some who had not even bothered to read , how very TD Michelle Obama, her mom and kids thank you for their upcoming China vacation - BizPac Review

Are you a raving looney that has sex with goatz?

Prove it is not true Pi.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Is this guy, pi, for real? Can anyone really be this simple?

Yes. dd to that the likes of JJ and you have people who are so simplistic in their thinking that it is painful to watch.

This idiocy of not having to back anything up and then asking others to 'google' it is a clear indication that something is wrong.
When one makes a statement in a discussion - ostensibly based on some sort of 'fact' - and is asked to back it up, it is simply debating to do so.

piwanoi is good at making up funny names for other posters . . and that's about it

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Are you a raving looney that has sex with goatz?

Prove it is not true Pi.

Still claiming the "Fifth" I see , you lot appear to think that personal insults are just as good as answering straight questions , any chance of running the slide rule over the article in my post 63 Concerning Michelles lavish spending ? No you say, thought so ,just carry on with the insults which are so very YOU

Has he posted any you tube videos yet and demand we watch and try to refute them yet? That's always a good tactic of the intellectually challenged.

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Hey Koojo you might all these articles which add credence to the article in the OP about Michelle Obama's lavish spending of tax payers money on Junkets ,and of course you could do like most of the others do , completely ignore them and pretend that they do not exist https://www.google.com/#q=++New+York+times+mentions+Michelle+Obama's+lavi sh+spending+

I thought the article in question was the getting a divorce one. As other posters have mentioned, anything from that source should be taken with a grain of salt, which I,m doing. The overspending thing is an altogether different topic/issue is it not?

Total bollocks , obviously you have not took 5 minutes of your precious time to read the article in the OP ,

Nope,why would anyone read beyond the headline in that rag.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Are you a raving looney that has sex with goatz?

Prove it is not true Pi.

Still claiming the "Fifth" I see , you lot appear to think that personal insults are just as good as answering straight questions , any chance of running the slide rule over the article in my post 63 Concerning Michelles lavish spending ? No you say, thought so ,just carry on with the insults which are so very YOU

Nope. I have no desire to read it or comment about it or engage an idiot like you in said discussion because I DONT CARE! But I am commenting on is your dishonest debate tactics and simple momded approach.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Has he posted any you tube videos yet and demand we watch and try to refute them yet? That's always a good tactic of the intellectually challenged.

Remember the 'journalist' . . . in reality a snip from a movie

Yes, he is thick as a brick

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Has he posted any you tube videos yet and demand we watch and try to refute them yet? That's always a good tactic of the intellectually challenged.

My Compliments on your avatar ,how very becoming ,and a simple question ,are you saying that Michelle Obama and her entourage never made the trip to China and stayed in a Hotel at nearly 8,500 Dollars a night payed for by tax payers money? , this will be the third time now you have claimed the "fifth"

Yes she did, but she had her two kids, her mother and god knows how many security staff with her. It was not a room, it was probably a hotel. or at least two floors of a hotel.

And why the fuck not. You got it, flaunt it.

When Terry and i eventually go on our honeymoon........in our wheelchairs, we shall expect the same sort of reception as Michelle had. But i'm not going to China.

Originally Posted by patsycat

Yes she did, but she had her two kids, her mother and god knows how many security staff with her. It was not a room, it was probably a hotel. or at least two floors of a hotel.

And why the fuck not. You got it, flaunt it.

When Terry and i go on our honeymoon........

Will the taxpayer be paying for your honey moon ?

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Has he posted any you tube videos yet and demand we watch and try to refute them yet? That's always a good tactic of the intellectually challenged.

My Compliments on your avatar ,how very becoming ,and a simple question ,are you saying that Michelle Obama and her entourage never made the trip to China and stayed in a Hotel at nearly 8,500 Dollars a night payed for by tax payers money? , this will be the third time now you have claimed the "fifth"

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

What I am wondering is how Michelle's excursion costs stacks up to what, say the Queen of England or Mrs. Bush or Clinton, spent/spend on their travel.

Or is this a thread about "uppity negros" only?

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by patsycat

Yes she did, but she had her two kids, her mother and god knows how many security staff with her. It was not a room, it was probably a hotel. or at least two floors of a hotel.

And why the fuck not. You got it, flaunt it.

When Terry and i go on our honeymoon........

Will the taxpayer be paying for your honey moon ?

No Terry will. It's normal that the bridegroom pays for the honeymoon.