Democrat Neighbor Electrocuted THEN Charged with Trespassing

[Ringel05]

FYI, coincidence based on the OP. If you stop looking for some weird agenda you'd realize that it was only an FYI and nothing more considering I never said the crook should sue. Dayamn are you dense.

You were quick to provide information on the basis for which he could.

Coincidence, my ass.

Believe what you want, you will anyway, I can't stop you nor do I care to, it's too much fun watching you make a complete ass out of yourself. Like I do with Guano and his far left cabal I'll continue to laugh at you and your far right cabal because of your collective stupidity.

I'm not the one whose FIRST statement was proving something to protect the thief then tries to pass it off as coincidence.

Like I said.......

I know what you said. Your first statement was one of providing information on how the THIEF could bring a case against the owner of the property from which he tried to steal. I got what you said.

Here, I'll help you out. I quoted a law, you're too much of a hack to figure out why beyond your own "reality", try looking past your nose for once in your life.

 

[Conservative65]

You were quick to provide information on the basis for which he could.

Coincidence, my ass.

Believe what you want, you will anyway, I can't stop you nor do I care to, it's too much fun watching you make a complete ass out of yourself. Like I do with Guano and his far left cabal I'll continue to laugh at you and your far right cabal because of your collective stupidity.

I'm not the one whose FIRST statement was proving something to protect the thief then tries to pass it off as coincidence.

Like I said.......

I know what you said. Your first statement was one of providing information on how the THIEF could bring a case against the owner of the property from which he tried to steal. I got what you said.

Here, I'll help you out. I quoted a law, you're too much of a hack to figure out why beyond your own "reality", try looking past your nose for once in your life.

And called it a coincidence that it happened to be a law protecting the THIEF.

 

[Ringel05]

Believe what you want, you will anyway, I can't stop you nor do I care to, it's too much fun watching you make a complete ass out of yourself. Like I do with Guano and his far left cabal I'll continue to laugh at you and your far right cabal because of your collective stupidity.

I'm not the one whose FIRST statement was proving something to protect the thief then tries to pass it off as coincidence.

Like I said.......

I know what you said. Your first statement was one of providing information on how the THIEF could bring a case against the owner of the property from which he tried to steal. I got what you said.

Here, I'll help you out. I quoted a law, you're too much of a hack to figure out why beyond your own "reality", try looking past your nose for once in your life.

And called it a coincidence that it happened to be a law protecting the THIEF.

*sigh* Obviously I can't fix stupid. Have a nice life.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one whose FIRST statement was proving something to protect the thief then tries to pass it off as coincidence.

Like I said.......

I know what you said. Your first statement was one of providing information on how the THIEF could bring a case against the owner of the property from which he tried to steal. I got what you said.

Here, I'll help you out. I quoted a law, you're too much of a hack to figure out why beyond your own "reality", try looking past your nose for once in your life.

And called it a coincidence that it happened to be a law protecting the THIEF.

*sigh* Obviously I can't fix stupid. Have a nice life.

Obviously, you define stupid as someone not agreeing with you. Now, that's stupid.

 

[Ringel05]

Like I said.......

I know what you said. Your first statement was one of providing information on how the THIEF could bring a case against the owner of the property from which he tried to steal. I got what you said.

Here, I'll help you out. I quoted a law, you're too much of a hack to figure out why beyond your own "reality", try looking past your nose for once in your life.

And called it a coincidence that it happened to be a law protecting the THIEF.

*sigh* Obviously I can't fix stupid. Have a nice life.

Obviously, you define stupid as someone not agreeing with you. Now, that's stupid.

Just returning the sentiment....... Hypocrite.........

 

[Conservative65]

I know what you said. Your first statement was one of providing information on how the THIEF could bring a case against the owner of the property from which he tried to steal. I got what you said.

Here, I'll help you out. I quoted a law, you're too much of a hack to figure out why beyond your own "reality", try looking past your nose for once in your life.

And called it a coincidence that it happened to be a law protecting the THIEF.

*sigh* Obviously I can't fix stupid. Have a nice life.

Obviously, you define stupid as someone not agreeing with you. Now, that's stupid.

Just returning the sentiment.......

I don't care if you agree with me but you seem to have a problem if I don't agree with you.

 

[Ringel05]

Here, I'll help you out. I quoted a law, you're too much of a hack to figure out why beyond your own "reality", try looking past your nose for once in your life.

And called it a coincidence that it happened to be a law protecting the THIEF.

*sigh* Obviously I can't fix stupid. Have a nice life.

Obviously, you define stupid as someone not agreeing with you. Now, that's stupid.

Just returning the sentiment.......

I don't care if you agree with me but you seem to have a problem if I don't agree with you.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, hell I don't even have a problem with the fact you're misinterpreting my reason, in fact I find it quite telling and extremely funny.

 

[Conservative65]

And called it a coincidence that it happened to be a law protecting the THIEF.

*sigh* Obviously I can't fix stupid. Have a nice life.

Obviously, you define stupid as someone not agreeing with you. Now, that's stupid.

Just returning the sentiment.......

I don't care if you agree with me but you seem to have a problem if I don't agree with you.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, hell I don't even have a problem with the fact you're misinterpreting my reason, in fact I find it quite telling and extremely funny.

Add liar to your list. You said I was irrational and stupid based on my disagreement with what you were claiming. Most people that do what you do turn out to be liars.

 

[Ringel05]

*sigh* Obviously I can't fix stupid. Have a nice life.

Obviously, you define stupid as someone not agreeing with you. Now, that's stupid.

Just returning the sentiment.......

I don't care if you agree with me but you seem to have a problem if I don't agree with you.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, hell I don't even have a problem with the fact you're misinterpreting my reason, in fact I find it quite telling and extremely funny.

Add liar to your list. You said I was irrational and stupid based on my disagreement with what you were claiming. Most people that do what you do turn out to be liars.

Good God, you're not really that stupid are you? That's impossible!!!!!!!! Well obviously it's not impossible.

 

[Conservative65]

Obviously, you define stupid as someone not agreeing with you. Now, that's stupid.

Just returning the sentiment.......

I don't care if you agree with me but you seem to have a problem if I don't agree with you.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, hell I don't even have a problem with the fact you're misinterpreting my reason, in fact I find it quite telling and extremely funny.

Add liar to your list. You said I was irrational and stupid based on my disagreement with what you were claiming. Most people that do what you do turn out to be liars.

Good God, you're not really that stupid are you? That's impossible!!!!!!!! Well obviously it's not impossible.

Again, you make claims about someone being stupid because they disagree with you. You keep proving you're that stupid. You've proven you're a liar.

 

[Ringel05]

Just returning the sentiment.......

I don't care if you agree with me but you seem to have a problem if I don't agree with you.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, hell I don't even have a problem with the fact you're misinterpreting my reason, in fact I find it quite telling and extremely funny.

Add liar to your list. You said I was irrational and stupid based on my disagreement with what you were claiming. Most people that do what you do turn out to be liars.

Good God, you're not really that stupid are you? That's impossible!!!!!!!! Well obviously it's not impossible.

Again, you make claims about someone being stupid because they disagree with you. You keep proving you're that stupid. You've proven you're a liar.

I'm ridiculing you not because you disagree but because you're locked in a false paradigm and refuse to see it. The same thing I've seen you do with those who disagree with you....... hypocrite........

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yet the first thing you posted was something that provided cover for the thief.

In your mind yes, in a rational person's mind it was nothing more than an FYI........ But hey, don't stop spinning it's fun to watch.

Oh, one of those that defines rational as agreeing with you?

No, one of those who defines rational as reading exactly what was said/posted/etc and not interpreting some nefarious or political agenda from it.

I read what you posted. Like I said, the first thing you mentioned was something designed to provide protection for the thief. Coincidence or purpose?

FYI, coincidence based on the OP. If you stop looking for some weird agenda you'd realize that it was only an FYI and nothing more considering I never said the crook should sue. Dayamn are you dense.

You're not intelligent enough to be credited with an agenda. You wafted from criminal liability to civil liability in hopes nobody would notice. You failed to establish the one, and now you fail to establish the other. You respond to intelligent posts with dunderheaded, irrelevant quips. If you could only hear the stupid shit you post.

 

[Ringel05]

In your mind yes, in a rational person's mind it was nothing more than an FYI........ But hey, don't stop spinning it's fun to watch.

Oh, one of those that defines rational as agreeing with you?

No, one of those who defines rational as reading exactly what was said/posted/etc and not interpreting some nefarious or political agenda from it.

I read what you posted. Like I said, the first thing you mentioned was something designed to provide protection for the thief. Coincidence or purpose?

FYI, coincidence based on the OP. If you stop looking for some weird agenda you'd realize that it was only an FYI and nothing more considering I never said the crook should sue. Dayamn are you dense.

You're not intelligent enough to be credited with an agenda. You wafted from criminal liability to civil liability in hopes nobody would notice. You failed to establish the one, and now you fail to establish the other. You respond to intelligent posts with dunderheaded, irrelevant quips. If you could only hear the stupid shit you post.

Wafted??? I mentioned both together and exclusively........ You're as stupid as your far left counterparts.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Oh, one of those that defines rational as agreeing with you?

No, one of those who defines rational as reading exactly what was said/posted/etc and not interpreting some nefarious or political agenda from it.

I read what you posted. Like I said, the first thing you mentioned was something designed to provide protection for the thief. Coincidence or purpose?

FYI, coincidence based on the OP. If you stop looking for some weird agenda you'd realize that it was only an FYI and nothing more considering I never said the crook should sue. Dayamn are you dense.

You're not intelligent enough to be credited with an agenda. You wafted from criminal liability to civil liability in hopes nobody would notice. You failed to establish the one, and now you fail to establish the other. You respond to intelligent posts with dunderheaded, irrelevant quips. If you could only hear the stupid shit you post.

Wafted??? I mentioned both together and exclusively........ You're as stupid as your far left counterparts.

Now you're just a lying sack of shit. You can't edit your intial posts where you were clearly making a case for criminality exclusively. You didn't start arguing for civil liability until after respondents demolished your first arguments. It's all there on record, Pinnochio.

 

[Ringel05]

No, one of those who defines rational as reading exactly what was said/posted/etc and not interpreting some nefarious or political agenda from it.

I read what you posted. Like I said, the first thing you mentioned was something designed to provide protection for the thief. Coincidence or purpose?

FYI, coincidence based on the OP. If you stop looking for some weird agenda you'd realize that it was only an FYI and nothing more considering I never said the crook should sue. Dayamn are you dense.

You're not intelligent enough to be credited with an agenda. You wafted from criminal liability to civil liability in hopes nobody would notice. You failed to establish the one, and now you fail to establish the other. You respond to intelligent posts with dunderheaded, irrelevant quips. If you could only hear the stupid shit you post.

Wafted??? I mentioned both together and exclusively........ You're as stupid as your far left counterparts.

Now you're just a lying sack of shit. You can't edit your intial posts where you were clearly making a case for criminality exclusively. You didn't start arguing for civil liability until after respondents demolished your first arguments. It's all there on record, Pinnochio.

We reaaaaaly need to work on your reading comprehension skills. We should start with a reading primer............
It's astounding that you're actually taking yourself seriously. Wow!!! Just wow!!!!!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I read what you posted. Like I said, the first thing you mentioned was something designed to provide protection for the thief. Coincidence or purpose?

FYI, coincidence based on the OP. If you stop looking for some weird agenda you'd realize that it was only an FYI and nothing more considering I never said the crook should sue. Dayamn are you dense.

You're not intelligent enough to be credited with an agenda. You wafted from criminal liability to civil liability in hopes nobody would notice. You failed to establish the one, and now you fail to establish the other. You respond to intelligent posts with dunderheaded, irrelevant quips. If you could only hear the stupid shit you post.

Wafted??? I mentioned both together and exclusively........ You're as stupid as your far left counterparts.

Now you're just a lying sack of shit. You can't edit your intial posts where you were clearly making a case for criminality exclusively. You didn't start arguing for civil liability until after respondents demolished your first arguments. It's all there on record, Pinnochio.

We reaaaaaly need to work on your reading comprehension skills. We should start with a reading primer............
It's astounding that you're actually taking yourself seriously. Wow!!! Just wow!!!!!

Another non response.

 

[Ringel05]

FYI, coincidence based on the OP. If you stop looking for some weird agenda you'd realize that it was only an FYI and nothing more considering I never said the crook should sue. Dayamn are you dense.

You're not intelligent enough to be credited with an agenda. You wafted from criminal liability to civil liability in hopes nobody would notice. You failed to establish the one, and now you fail to establish the other. You respond to intelligent posts with dunderheaded, irrelevant quips. If you could only hear the stupid shit you post.

Wafted??? I mentioned both together and exclusively........ You're as stupid as your far left counterparts.

Now you're just a lying sack of shit. You can't edit your intial posts where you were clearly making a case for criminality exclusively. You didn't start arguing for civil liability until after respondents demolished your first arguments. It's all there on record, Pinnochio.

We reaaaaaly need to work on your reading comprehension skills. We should start with a reading primer............
It's astounding that you're actually taking yourself seriously. Wow!!! Just wow!!!!!

Another non response.

Considering who I'm "conversing" with it quite the appropriate response.
It's amazing how you've evolved from plainly stupid to pathetically stupid. There's obviously no help for you, believe what you want, no skin off of my nose. Bye.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Yeah, it's illegal but it shouldn't be.

yes it should be.
what about children that are too young to worry about things like trespass? You cant just go shocking 6 year olds.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yeah, it's illegal but it shouldn't be.

yes it should be.
what about children that are too young to worry about things like trespass? You cant just go shocking 6 year olds.

I don't know the full details of this rig but from the video it appeared to be an electric current regulated into mild, controlled pulses like you see on livestock fences to discourage horses or cows from sticking their heads through the fence. I was a little boy when I first touched one of these. I jumped at the shock but it wasn't painful or injurious.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't care if you agree with me but you seem to have a problem if I don't agree with you.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, hell I don't even have a problem with the fact you're misinterpreting my reason, in fact I find it quite telling and extremely funny.

Add liar to your list. You said I was irrational and stupid based on my disagreement with what you were claiming. Most people that do what you do turn out to be liars.

Good God, you're not really that stupid are you? That's impossible!!!!!!!! Well obviously it's not impossible.

Again, you make claims about someone being stupid because they disagree with you. You keep proving you're that stupid. You've proven you're a liar.

I'm ridiculing you not because you disagree but because you're locked in a false paradigm and refuse to see it. The same thing I've seen you do with those who disagree with you....... hypocrite........

You're not ridiculing anyone, son. You don't have the capability. That you think you do proves you're stupid. It's not because you disagree with me. It's because you're stupid.