Thread: On the level?

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by piwanoi

I hardly think you can get anything higher in political terms than the antics of the wife of the POTUS , the so called "First lady

Dragging the thread off topic again and a stupid illinformed comment to boot.
His wife is not an elected or appointed government official. There are many things much higher in poloitical terms you fool.

When will you get back on topic and prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong?

Hey Brain dead WTF do you think this is a Sunday school meeting for the under privileged?

^I await yet another red herring, body swerve, veering off topic reply from your nefarious and disingenuous besotted stable of misleading disinformation.

How long before you get back on topic and answer the relavent question?

Do you have an answer Piwiannoy or will you continue to play dumb?

Originally Posted by chassamui

^I await yet another red herring, body swerve, veering off topic reply from your nefarious and disingenuous besotted stable of misleading disinformation.

How long before you get back on topic and answer the relavent question?

Do you have an answer Piwiannoy or will you continue to play dumb?

For a cretin like me who is "driving people away" from the forum I reckon I have got the most posts directed at me today than any other member has, quite an achievement eh, and more fool you and the other plonkers for keep taking me on

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by piwanoi

For a cretin like me who is "driving people away" from the forum I reckon I have got the most posts directed at me today than any other member has, quite an achievement eh, and more fool you and the other plonkers for keep taking me on

Yet another comment dodging the question.

Did you watch that utube clip? Twenty six minutes talking about the American dream and family values ending with the comment 'I am mom in chief'. Oh and guess what, she's an Obama supporter. Rather undermines your case that you can think of nothing higher in politics.

Anyway back on topic. Can you answer the question and prove that your claims about the OP are correct or not?

Try and pay attention brain dead I said that the article has a basis of truth in it ,albeit Michelles lavish spending in her Chinese Junket , earlier on I requested you post Gilbert who made the same remark about it, but then I said you had'nt the guts ,quite obviously I was correct

. . . via Chassamui

Originally Posted by piwanoi

For a cretin like me who is "driving people away" from the forum I reckon I have got the most posts directed at me today than any other member has, quite an achievement eh

Well, you do have 60 out of 130 posts on the thread alone - you can post a whole lot of crap even without any help

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

. . . via Chassamui

Originally Posted by piwanoi

For a cretin like me who is "driving people away" from the forum I reckon I have got the most posts directed at me today than any other member has, quite an achievement eh

Well, you do have 60 out of 130 posts on the thread alone - you can post a whole lot of crap even without any help

Just goes to show how stupid you kunts are by keep taking me on when all I post is crap

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Try and pay attention brain dead I said that the article has a basis of truth in it ,albeit Michelles lavish spending in her Chinese Junket , earlier on I requested you post Gilbert who made the same remark about it, but then I said you had'nt the guts ,quite obviously I was correct

Wrong. You asked everyone to prove you were wrong and the article was factual.

I told you as you were the only one who believed it that the burden of proof was on you.

So can you prove it, yes or no? Final answer, phone a friend if you wish, just answer the bloody question and stop dodging and back tracking.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Try and pay attention brain dead I said that the article has a basis of truth in it ,albeit Michelles lavish spending in her Chinese Junket , earlier on I requested you post Gilbert who made the same remark about it, but then I said you had'nt the guts ,quite obviously I was correct

Wrong. You asked everyone to prove you were wrong and the article was factual.

I told you as you were the only one who believed it that the burden of proof was on you.

So can you prove it, yes or no? Final answer, phone a friend if you wish, just answer the bloody question and stop dodging and back tracking.

Show me the post were I stated that the article was factual ?

Simple question Pi, and you really do have to answer it before moving on.
Her spending sounds lavish, but she has no choice, any trip by a first lady is accompanied by a horde of staff and security, and a suite of 9k per night is not really that extravagant for 4 or 5 people.

Is her spending on travel out of line with past first ladies?

Originally Posted by Necron99

Simple question Pi, and you really do have to answer it before moving on.
Her spending sounds lavish, but she has no choice, any trip by a first lady is accompanied by a horde of staff and security, and a suite of 9k per night is not really that extravagant for 4 or 5 people.

Is her spending on travel out of line with past first ladies?

I havent a clue as to how her spending as far as first ladys goes but that is not the Point and it has never been mentioned , the point is because the OP came from an outfit that was not "approved" the whole shabang was dismissed as a load of bollocks even though her Chinese trip was was a matter of public knowledge .

Originally Posted by piwanoi

I havent a clue as to how her spending as far as first ladys goes but that is not the Point and it has never been mentioned , the point is because the OP came from an outfit that was not "approved" the whole shabang was dismissed as a load of bollocks even though her Chinese trip was was a matter of public knowledge .

I have seen 3 different figures quoted on this thread. 9,000, 8,500 and 8,400.Two of them were quoted by you. How can they all be correct?

You told everyone to prove you wrong. I am telling you to prove otherwise. No one else gives a shit.

Whatever the articles say, parts of it will be based on supposition and lazy journalism. Some bozo will ask the hotel the cost of the rooms. That figure may not be waht the US paid. It might be more for the inconvenience, or it might be less for the good PR, or maybe the state dept haggled a bit and cut a deal. You don't know and they don't know so STFU unless you can prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by Necron99

Simple question Pi, and you really do have to answer it before moving on.
Her spending sounds lavish, but she has no choice, any trip by a first lady is accompanied by a horde of staff and security, and a suite of 9k per night is not really that extravagant for 4 or 5 people.

Is her spending on travel out of line with past first ladies?

I havent a clue as to how her spending as far as first ladys goes but that is not the Point and it has never been mentioned , the point is because the OP came from an outfit that was not "approved" the whole shabang was dismissed as a load of bollocks even though her Chinese trip was was a matter of public knowledge .

Ok, so as usual, you have no point, ergo no discussion or debate.

THREAD CLOSED.

You asked a question, as you stated above it was answered and the majority of people who responded to your thread thought the NE was a joke.

Then you morphed it into Michelle Obama spends too much money on overseas junkets.

The original OP had nothing to do with this. You did not ask what we thought about Michelle Obama or the state or her marriage. You asked what we thought of the article and the source.

Enough from me..... agree with Necron Thread Closed.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Shouldn't this thread be in Issues?

It probably should be but Piwiannoy is banned from posting there for disruption of threads and his lack of knowledge and understanding.
He is the TD Lounge version of Rick Thai.

Jaysus. He oughta be locked in issues not locked out!

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by piwanoi

I havent a clue as to how her spending as far as first ladys goes but that is not the Point and it has never been mentioned , the point is because the OP came from an outfit that was not "approved" the whole shabang was dismissed as a load of bollocks even though her Chinese trip was was a matter of public knowledge .

I have seen 3 different figures quoted on this thread. 9,000, 8,500 and 8,400.Two of them were quoted by you. How can they all be correct?

You told everyone to prove you wrong. I am telling you to prove otherwise. No one else gives a shit.

Whatever the articles say, parts of it will be based on supposition and lazy journalism. Some bozo will ask the hotel the cost of the rooms. That figure may not be waht the US paid. It might be more for the inconvenience, or it might be less for the good PR, or maybe the state dept haggled a bit and cut a deal. You don't know and they don't know so STFU unless you can prove otherwise.

Grasping at straws again I see and Just another load of complete Bollocks , show me the posts were I personally quoted any figures , the figures quoted was in the links and not by myself ,or is it the usual case of shoot the messenger and not the actual message , what a fucking plonker

Originally Posted by aging one

You asked a question, as you stated above it was answered and the majority of people who responded to your thread thought the NE was a joke.

Then you morphed it into Michelle Obama spends too much money on overseas junkets.

The original OP had nothing to do with this. You did not ask what we thought about Michelle Obama or the state or her marriage. You asked what we thought of the article and the source.

Enough from me..... agree with Necron Thread Closed.

No its far from fucking closed that would be too easy ,are you totally insane? , the OP did not morph into anything about Michelle's lavish spending its all there in the OP so FFS take your head from out of your nether regions and read it

Originally Posted by piwanoi

No its far from fucking closed that would be too easy ,are you totally insane? , the OP did not morph into anything about Michelle's lavish spending its all there in the OP so FFS take your head from out of your nether regions and read it

Its closed as far as I am concerned mate. I now see why you are limited to certain parts of the board. I was in no way personal towards you. But I receive this crap in kind for even questioning your reasoning?

Originally Posted by aging one

Originally Posted by piwanoi

No its far from fucking closed that would be too easy ,are you totally insane? , the OP did not morph into anything about Michelle's lavish spending its all there in the OP so FFS take your head from out of your nether regions and read it

Its closed as far as I am concerned mate. I now see why you are limited to certain parts of the board. I was in no way personal towards you. But I receive this crap in kind for even questioning your reasoning?

Ahh I see you simply refuse to read the article in the OP, as far as I am concerned you are Just another loser who who can talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk you allow the towel to be thrown in before the bell rings to end the first round

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Shouldn't this thread be in Issues?

It probably should be but Piwiannoy is banned from posting there for disruption of threads and his lack of knowledge and understanding.
He is the TD Lounge version of Rick Thai.

Jaysus. He oughta be locked in issues not locked out!

Why not have a word with your mod mates and get me imprisoned cos its the only way kunts like you will ever win one

Not jailed mate, just safely tucked away with the other nutters in issues where you belong. You can then post nonsense to your heart's desire.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by piwanoi

I havent a clue as to how her spending as far as first ladys goes but that is not the Point and it has never been mentioned , the point is because the OP came from an outfit that was not "approved" the whole shabang was dismissed as a load of bollocks even though her Chinese trip was was a matter of public knowledge .

I have seen 3 different figures quoted on this thread. 9,000, 8,500 and 8,400.Two of them were quoted by you. How can they all be correct?

You told everyone to prove you wrong. I am telling you to prove otherwise. No one else gives a shit.

Whatever the articles say, parts of it will be based on supposition and lazy journalism. Some bozo will ask the hotel the cost of the rooms. That figure may not be waht the US paid. It might be more for the inconvenience, or it might be less for the good PR, or maybe the state dept haggled a bit and cut a deal. You don't know and they don't know so STFU unless you can prove otherwise.

Grasping at straws again I see and Just another load of complete Bollocks , show me the posts were I personally quoted any figures , the figures quoted was in the links and not by myself ,or is it the usual case of shoot the messenger and not the actual message , what a fucking plonker

Ahh yes I remember now ,I did quote one figure of "nearly" 8500 which is near enough, the other figure you claimed I made of 8400 is a complete figment of your vivid Imagination as it was in a link and not my words in any shape or form , and BTW I am still waiting for you to reveal the post were you claimed I said that the article in the OP was correct

Pikey heres a fact Nigel farage's ancestors are Muslim! or so says the NT, don't shoot pikey he's only the messenger of doom and gloom.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Ahh yes I remember now ,I did quote one figure of "nearly" 8500 which is near enough, the other figure you claimed I made of 8400 is a complete figment of your vivid Imagination as it was in a link and not my words in any shape or form , and BTW I am still waiting for you to reveal the post were you claimed I said that the article in the OP was correct

You admit you were wrong then. That's a good start.
You do realise that when you quote a link in support of your argument, it is quite valid for posters to use that link to discredit you?
The information in your links is at variance with your position. The links show that you have not read and understood the content of those links and the fact that the information contained in them varies, supports my assertion that you are a gullible grasping fool without two brain cells to rub together.

How come you are happy to believe all this shite you have googled but you deny the opinion of every other poster on here?
If we are such fools as you believe, why ask in the first place you dullard?

Post the OP on any forum in the world and you will get a similar response to the one you got here. Your mates down the pub are as dumb as you are so they don't count. Why are you unable to accept the overwhelming opinion of people who are smarter than you? Because you have the IQ of a rabid soi dog, that's why

What is the readership figures for the National Enquirer ?
Do people actually buy this rag, how thick must people be to pay money for this.