Gibson vs Martin

A couple interesting quotes I found;

 

All of your above comments are unacceptable to me for inclusion in this discussion at this time. They are not worthy of being addressed, as they are intentionally provocative and derisive in nature, imo.

Please refrain from stating such comments, as this has occurred several times now, with you being unable to be respectful, and further outbursts like this may warrant an end to what I view as a somewhat productive debate.

Please state your case concerning the crimes being civil in nature, as opposed to what the feds are charging. It may be wise to start with what the feds are charging, in their words. Do you have access to the document? If so, please post it or a link, and I will begin addressing that important argument.

 

Very good, those are acceptable points.

They do not address American law, which I believed was the point of the argument. The feds are claiming that they are enforcing a law, are they not? Are they enforcing American law, or.....?

Mind you, international law is also important here, and we should address that as well, but my question at this point is about what the specific law is that companies, here and elsewhere, have allegedly broken, and how are the feds using them in this case.

 

More important than you think. I dug up some facts. Now it is your turn.

 

How interesting. My thread. My topic. Napolitano's topic (if you had actually listened). Yet somehow you feel "They are not worthy of being addressed." Well, sorry, but as Judge Judy says, "This is my playpen!"

 

You neglected to include a specific request. That is a major mistake with someone like me, for I choose to discuss what happens when people decide to get together with other people, strip off each other clothes, and begin having sex.

Go.

 

They were chosen to be excluded since they were not conductive to a rational discussion. They were intended to agitate, and failed to include any direct correlation/relation to the topic, which is indeed yours to moderate, but to which also ignores the obvious point that I too am allowed to moderate anything I wish, as I also have free will.

Please address the legitimate topics that I have already vetted, and avoid further agitations, or I will cease responding and this somewhat productive debate will end prematurely.

Your choice. As I promised, I would do what I could to avoid an all-out flame war between us. You chose not to agree, invalidating my aforementioned promise, since no agreement occurred. What that means here is that you are suffering under the illusion that you hold power over my comments. You don't. Bear that in mind.

 

I guess I will conclude that the government is targeting Gibson just like the IRS has targetd conservative groups. Thank you!

 

I never asked you to refrain from talking about anything, You tried to ask me. I refused and you got your panties in a bunch. Not my problem.

 

He always gets his panties in a bunch. It's probably caused by his teeth. He thinks every problem he has is caused by his teeth. Maybe Obamacare will fix his panty-bunching problem.

 

Oh boy! Another case where you jump into a conversation but condemn others for doing it. Hypocrite.

 

OK, so back to the original topic. Why should the government not ahve attacked Martin along with Gibson? Or can you explain just why this should not be targeting just as the IRS is doing?

 

Well if it isn't Moron Joe sashaying his way into the conversation! Hypocrite.

 

"panties in a bunch" is not an acceptable counter-argument.

However, if you wish to discuss panties, I am more than willing to provide an endless stream of images, of course.

But, if the Viagra allows, you may wish to read this as well:

http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/too-provocative-for-u-s-viewers.50343/

 

Now that was a shameless plug.

 

Thank you.

As you have reached your conclusion, I feel it is time to end our debate.

Thank you for participating, and may god have mercy on your soul.

 

I will not be answering any more of your questions on this topic at this time. I have been overly generous explaining my reasoning to you, with virtually no reciprocation. You have however answered enough of my questions, in a respectful manner, for me to say: Thank you for your participation.

 

UHM?!?! I guess you did not notice whose post was cited in my entry.

I did not participate, but I answered most of you questions? HUH? BTW, you have introduced no, none, zero evidence to contradict anything Napolitano nor I have said.

Oh, and, I only really had one question for you and you never answered that one. Any other question you might find was nothing more than an effort to show you how ridiculous your arguments were.

 

Your failure to understand basic words has led to this gem. Perhaps you replied too quickly, and forgot to properly vet your comment before posting.

I suggest you slow down, and think before you react. Doing so will improve your writing skills, and others here will not have as many opportunities to provoke you.

oy