Murkowski Leads By Over 10,000 Votes

[Ravi]

Immense dorkiness! Describes liarbility to a tee...this meltdown of his is reaching epic proportions!

 

[bodecea]

My ass is sitting, dopey. I tend to sit when composing posts for an internet message board.

I realize that assholes of your unusually low intellectual capacity say "fuck the law" whenever you happen to disagree with the law. But, you, being an asshole, don't make those decisions based on any coherent set of guiding principles.

You do it on whim, caprice, spur of the moment preferences.

Sure, if the law said "do not harbor Jews" it would be morally proper to say "fuck the law." If the law were to permit slavery and forbid harboring an escaped slave, it would be morally proper to say "fuck the law."

But a clearly written law that is designed to avoid fundamental problems (and otherwise readily avoidable and foreseeable problems at that) during ELECTIONS does not fall into the same category.

Because you, being an asshole, don't care for the particular impact of that law, you say "fuck the law," even while you are incapable of grasping the evil it was designed to avoid.

You are a putz. Nothing more. Now go sit your own ass down in a corner and wear your dunce cap, jerkoff.

Oh c'mon....this is getting ridiculous.....

Direct your comments, then, to GT, ya mangy ol' hypocrite.

And as far as "getting" ridiculous, take the mote outta yer own eye, boredtoseeya: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/131648-how-to-post-for-liberals.html

I wasn't referring to you directly, Liability....but you are falling off a cliff here and it IS getting ridiculous....you can't seem to be civil to anyone. Can't help but see that someone is spiraling out of control. I'll let everyone judge for themselves who that might be.

 

[Liability]

Immense dorkiness! Describes liarbility to a tee...this meltdown of his is reaching epic proportions!

Not even a hint of a meltdown, here, skank.

Raving Lunacy likes to pretend to see "meltdowns" where there are none.

She's not exactly honest.

 

[G.T.]

I don't think he's falling off of a cliff, in his defense. I've read his posts for a couple of years now here and there. This is how he always talk to people. He's a keyboard commando, of the highest order. If this is how he conducts his business in the real world, let's hope he doesn't come across someone who will knock his block off. He is uber-sensitive, and all.

 

[Ravi]

Immense dorkiness! Describes liarbility to a tee...this meltdown of his is reaching epic proportions!

Not even a hint of a meltdown, here, skank.

Raving Lunacy likes to pretend to see "meltdowns" where there are none.

She's not exactly honest.

Tissue?

This is common to threads you are on. Someone disagrees with you and subsequently pwns your tush and henceforth they are treated to your vapid insults.

It's clockwork.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Counting votes that should not be counted (because the law is clear and not at all ambiguous) is inherently fraudulent. Denying that -- as you do -- is dishonest of you.

I don't care if Mookaka wins. But let's at least find out if she won on the level.

The reporter's job is not to interpret the law.

The votes that Miller is challenging are CURRENTLY counted for Murkowski. That's why he challenged them.

But the fact that they are currently counted FOR Murkowski means that the only HONEST way to report the current count is to report the count that includes the challenged votes.

She CURRENTLY has a lead of 10,400 votes. You cannot HONESTLY report that as some different number.

Once again, retard, you are arguing an obviously strawman argument.

I did not make any accusation against reporters, you dickhead.

I said the vote tally is fraudulent. And I have explained why, you jerkoff. It is because it includes the very votes that ought to not count. If those invalid votes were to be subtracted (as the law on its face would call for them to be) from the stated vote tally, the difference in the count would be much much smaller. Only then would it be rational to conduct a recount.

And the recount might not suffice to make up the difference then remaining, for that matter. So you'd have nothing to fear, carbuncle. Either Sen. Mukaka would win outright or she'd lose outright. But the odds are that she'd still win. So what are you so worried about it for?

I'm worried? You're the one who initially jumped into the thread shreiking that the count was fraudulent.

 

[Liability]

Oh c'mon....this is getting ridiculous.....

Direct your comments, then, to GT, ya mangy ol' hypocrite.

And as far as "getting" ridiculous, take the mote outta yer own eye, boredtoseeya: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/131648-how-to-post-for-liberals.html

I wasn't referring to you directly, Liability....but you are falling off a cliff here and it IS getting ridiculous....you can't seem to be civil to anyone. Can't help but see that someone is spiraling out of control. I'll let everyone judge for themselves who that might be.

Again, boredtoseeya, your dishonest opinion is not of any value. You couldn't be objective in a conversation with me if it made a difference in the battle for gay rights. You are just that dishonest.

Anyway, your post did refer to me directly as it quoted my post. See? Everyone sees your glaring dishonesty, boredtoseeya. Your lies have no power.

Some (schmucks like JokeyFakey and Raving Luncacy) may pretend otherwise, but they are merely as dishonest as you are. So, it aint no thang.

Carry on.

 

[Liability]

The reporter's job is not to interpret the law.

The votes that Miller is challenging are CURRENTLY counted for Murkowski. That's why he challenged them.

But the fact that they are currently counted FOR Murkowski means that the only HONEST way to report the current count is to report the count that includes the challenged votes.

She CURRENTLY has a lead of 10,400 votes. You cannot HONESTLY report that as some different number.

Once again, retard, you are arguing an obviously strawman argument.

I did not make any accusation against reporters, you dickhead.

I said the vote tally is fraudulent. And I have explained why, you jerkoff. It is because it includes the very votes that ought to not count. If those invalid votes were to be subtracted (as the law on its face would call for them to be) from the stated vote tally, the difference in the count would be much much smaller. Only then would it be rational to conduct a recount.

And the recount might not suffice to make up the difference then remaining, for that matter. So you'd have nothing to fear, carbuncle. Either Sen. Mukaka would win outright or she'd lose outright. But the odds are that she'd still win. So what are you so worried about it for?

I'm worried? You're the one who initially jumped into the thread shreiking that the count was fraudulent.

Yes. YOU are worried judging by your irrational posts. And no. I did not "jump" in nor did I shriek anything, you moron.

I did, however, say that the vote count is fraudulent. It is. It includes votes which, on the face of the law in Alaska, should NOT be counted. Even you should be able to grasp that point.

This isn't even a difficult concept, carby.

 

[bodecea]

Direct your comments, then, to GT, ya mangy ol' hypocrite.

And as far as "getting" ridiculous, take the mote outta yer own eye, boredtoseeya: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/131648-how-to-post-for-liberals.html

I wasn't referring to you directly, Liability....but you are falling off a cliff here and it IS getting ridiculous....you can't seem to be civil to anyone. Can't help but see that someone is spiraling out of control. I'll let everyone judge for themselves who that might be.

Again, boredtoseeya, your dishonest opinion is not of any value. You couldn't be objective in a conversation with me if it made a difference in the battle for gay rights. You are just that dishonest.

Anyway, your post did refer to me directly as it quoted my post. See? Everyone sees your glaring dishonesty, boredtoseeya. Your lies have no power.

Some (schmucks like JokeyFakey and Raving Luncacy) may pretend otherwise, but they are merely as dishonest as you are. So, it aint no thang.

Carry on.

You just can't help it, can you? Ok, so this is the real you. We get it. Sad, but we get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are ignoring the truth about yourself, Liarbility. I will remind you. You know me what you are to me: you are my bitch. Always have been, always will.

Be polite and I might think of setting you free someday. Nah, I won't.

 

[Liability]

Immense dorkiness! Describes liarbility to a tee...this meltdown of his is reaching epic proportions!

Not even a hint of a meltdown, here, skank.

Raving Lunacy likes to pretend to see "meltdowns" where there are none.

She's not exactly honest.

Tissue?

This is common to threads you are on. Someone disagrees with you and subsequently pwns your tush and henceforth they are treated to your vapid insults.

It's clockwork.

Ah, raving dishonesty. When you need to premise your "arguments" on lies, as you do, then your arguments are obviously not worth "making" in the first place.

But, don't let reality deter you. It never has before.

 

[L.K.Eder]

whatever y'all do, don't call liability sensitive.

you would be wrong.

 

[Liability]

You are ignoring the truth about yourself, Liarbility. I will remind you. You know me what you are to me: you are my bitch. Always have been, always will.

Be polite and I might think of setting you free someday. Nah, I won't.

NAh. You know you are exposed as a fraud so you lie all the more.

You know you are completely worthless and that you were even before your lies were first exposed.

JokeyFakey, everyone knows that your very identity here is a lie. So, don't imagine you impress anyone. Even the dozen or so imbeciles whose opinions you value realize you are nothing but a pissant fraud.

 

[Ravi]

whatever y'all do, don't call liability sensitive.

you would be wrong.

I think the proper word is emotional. Sensitive implies some nuance of thought.

 

[L.K.Eder]

whatever y'all do, don't call liability sensitive.

you would be wrong.

I think the proper word is emotional. Sensitive implies some nuance of thought.

and sense.

 

[G.T.]

 

[Liability]

whatever y'all do, don't call liability sensitive.

you would be wrong.

That's true, even though LK doesn't understand it.

Am I combative with certain dishonest tools here? Yep. But, am I sensitive? Nope.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

GiT, going out of your way to prove (again) that you bring absolutely nothing to the game is hardly necessary.

We all already see that.

 

[G.T.]

* * * *

GiT, going out of your way to prove (again) that you bring absolutely nothing to the game is hardly necessary.

We all already see that.

@ you. That's all I can do in this "game." Sorry. I have the funny bone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are ignoring the truth about yourself, Liarbility. I will remind you. You know me what you are to me: you are my bitch. Always have been, always will.

Be polite and I might think of setting you free someday. Nah, I won't.

NAh. You know you are exposed as a fraud so you lie all the more.

You know you are completely worthless and that you were even before your lies were first exposed.

JokeyFakey, everyone knows that your very identity here is a lie. So, don't imagine you impress anyone. Even the dozen or so imbeciles whose opinions you value realize you are nothing but a pissant fraud.

Your mouth is working as you are bent over: impressive!