Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP

[Wry Catcher]

1. Public schools allow everyone to attend, private schools restrict enrollment and thus any comparison is an apples to antelope fallacy; A thread on public education is a worthwhile one, if the bigots can be restricted (much like a private school, too many threads are destroyed by idiots and bigots).

2. You have no credible evidence to support this allegation.
Obamacare’s projected cost falls due to lower premiums under health care law, CBO says

3. Word Salad. Roads allow for the movement of goods; and roads provide a means for services to be rendered (you can't bring your plumbing or electrical problem to Wal-Mart or buy a new roof there). Whenb adverse weather impacts transportation the economy stalls.

4. More or less word salad, using Marxism as a pejorative is a usual response by the far right when they have no evidence to support their ideas (dogma); In fact transportation suffers as a direct result of the dogma that taxes are bad, and more taxes are worse. Consider only public transportation, if properly funded several variable need to be considered: 1. Sur taxes on Gas will fall; the use of gas will be reduced; less cars on the roads reduce maintenance costs for roads and bridges, fewer accidents will reduce the costs to first responders reducing the need to raise taxes by local government and building inter ana intra fast, clean and reliable transit (BART, DART, The Metro, etc.) provides jobs and creates transportation villages along their route. Your (& others) myopia is what holds progress back.

5. Gee, good for you. How do small government dogmatists justify such a heresy?

"...using Marxism as a pejorative is a usual response by the far right ...."


Although it is only March.....this may be the winner in the annual "Stupidest Poster of the Year."


Either he doesn't know what pejorative means.....


.....or he doesn't know that Marxism was and is responsible for more death and destruction than any other ideology in the history of the world.



Congrat on your big win.

Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions, authoritarian totalitarian systems created the carnage. Only stupid people blame Marx, since Marxism as he envisioned it has NEVER existed except as a theory.

Before you call anyone stupid, you ought to have someone mentor you other than those you regularly echo.

"Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions..."

I see you're trying to burnish your creds for the award, the annual "Stupidest Poster of the Year."

Have no fear....you're a shoo-in.


Stop worrying.....everyone knows you're a moron.




Spoiler alert: do not....DO NOT....under punishment of education....peruse the following!
You've been warned.



"With the fall of the Soviet Union and communist governments in Eastern Europe, too many have the impression that Marxism, the religion of communism, is dead. Hardly. It is alive and well in many countries still, such as North Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, a gaggle of African countries, and in the minds of many South American political leaders. However, of most importance to the future of democracy, communism still pollutes the thinking of a vast multitude of Western academics and intellectuals.
...Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987.
The killing machine that is Marxism



Now...what did that moron say???
Oh...yeah...""Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions..."

You may simply be dishonest, but methinks you actually believe the crap you post. Maybe instead of parroting some obscure author you might actually try to read some real history, in terms of news articles, historical biographies, personal letters and the works of those such as Marx who you despise and yet do not understand.

BTW, starting a post by calling me stupid and a moron isn't a rebuttal nor does it even hint at some evidence you read my post or have ever considered Communism in theory, and how it comports to the practice of despots who ordered mass murder, those who ruled and rule the nations you (or the obscure author claimed) were Communists. Mass murder of people isn't based on an economic theory, it is savagery and accomplished by evil men who came to power by force, vote or accident of birth.

Simple minded people like you, and those who support Trump see a world beyond their comprehension and have never climbed even half way to the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Of course that is expected of narcissists, others fall prey to the hate and fear rhetoric of the demagogue. and those who write books revising history (a genre in which you have a good deal of familiarity).

MORE????

You need more, before you monogram "Moron" on all of your overalls????


Sure:
Marxist socialism is, in theory, what was being practiced by all of the countries that we call "Communist". The objective of Marxist socialism is to use the State to prepare society for communism by communalizing all of the productive forces of the society, i.e. by making all of the means of production public property.
Communism and Marxism - rationalrevolution.net
www.rationalrevolution.net/war/communism_and_marxism.htm


Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, anarchism(anarchist communism), and the political ideologies grouped around both. Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



C'mon now......one more time!
Repeat this:
"Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions..."

Everyone needs a good laugh......and folks laughing at you wouldn't be a new experience, would it.

It would be a new experience, as I've always been able to lessen tensions by being self effacing and using wry humor. As a narcissist you have no clue as to how effective that can be, nor any understanding of why so many on this forum find you at best to be a tedious partisan.

Do you not understand that Marx supported the down trodden, and in - for example - the Soviet System and China they have suffered under despotic rule? I can't believe you are so stupid as to not comprehend such an obvious issue, thus I must continue to believe you are a perfidious and dishonest partisan troll.

 

[Faun]

Rightard Derangement Syndrome (RDS) rears its ugly head again...

rightwinger did not say the government does things better than the private sector. Learn to comprehend what you read.

here is what he said:


"
I want the government to do what needs doing. If they can do it at a lower cost than I can do it on my own...I'm all for it

If I can get cheaper education through the government than the private sector...I'm all for it
If I can get cheaper healthcare through the government than the private sector...I'm all for it

We the people are a very large group. If we can get together and get better deals than the private sector is offering, then I am all for it"




He certainly implied that he thinks that govt can do some things better than private industry. We merely asked him for some examples.

But since neither of you can come up with any------------case closed

Yes, he said the government does some things "cheaper". He didn't say the government does things "better".

That you think "cheaper" implies "better" only serves to expose just how retarded you are; since better products and services are typically more expensive.

You're an idiot for thinking cheaper means better and Oldstyle is an idiot for thinking rightwinger said "better" when in fact he said, "cheaper."

As far as a list of services the government provides cheaper than the private sector, RW already gave some examples.

Jesus, Faun...the government doesn't do anything "cheaper" than the private sector either! If you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...let the Federal Government do it!

Yes, USPS is cheaper for the shipper. Maybe that's why it loses money every year.

If it charged what it would need to break even financially, it would not be cheaper.

are you really so arithmetically challenged that you don't understand that?

Wrong. It would still be cheaper.

Again..... they don't have to charge extra, like private companies, to make a profit.

 

[Faun]

Yes, he said the government does some things "cheaper". He didn't say the government does things "better".

That you think "cheaper" implies "better" only serves to expose just how retarded you are; since better products and services are typically more expensive.

You're an idiot for thinking cheaper means better and Oldstyle is an idiot for thinking rightwinger said "better" when in fact he said, "cheaper."

As far as a list of services the government provides cheaper than the private sector, RW already gave some examples.

Jesus, Faun...the government doesn't do anything "cheaper" than the private sector either! If you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...let the Federal Government do it!

Let me guess...you're so naive that you think because the USPS charges less for a service that they can actually do it for less? Let me give you a hint on this, Faun...UPS and FedEx don't get taxpayer dollars in order to stay in business...the US Postal Service loses millions of dollars a year and only manages to stay in business because it is allowed to borrow from the US Treasury. I believe that debt is well above 16 billion dollars right now! Think us taxpayers will be seeing that money anytime soon? If you DO...then you're one incredibly stupid person!

You're a fucking retard.

They can do it for less because they don't have to charge more to make a profit. How do you not understand that?

right, they do it at a loss, and we the taxpayers make up the difference. How do you not understand that?

Show me where I denied their losses are not supplemented with tax dollars?

Wait, I'll save you the time.... you're an idiot, I never did.

 

[Faun]

Yes, he said the government does some things "cheaper". He didn't say the government does things "better".

That you think "cheaper" implies "better" only serves to expose just how retarded you are; since better products and services are typically more expensive.

You're an idiot for thinking cheaper means better and Oldstyle is an idiot for thinking rightwinger said "better" when in fact he said, "cheaper."

As far as a list of services the government provides cheaper than the private sector, RW already gave some examples.

Jesus, Faun...the government doesn't do anything "cheaper" than the private sector either! If you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...let the Federal Government do it!

Let me guess...you're so naive that you think because the USPS charges less for a service that they can actually do it for less? Let me give you a hint on this, Faun...UPS and FedEx don't get taxpayer dollars in order to stay in business...the US Postal Service loses millions of dollars a year and only manages to stay in business because it is allowed to borrow from the US Treasury. I believe that debt is well above 16 billion dollars right now! Think us taxpayers will be seeing that money anytime soon? If you DO...then you're one incredibly stupid person!

You're a fucking retard.

They can do it for less because they don't have to charge more to make a profit. How do you not understand that?

You think the US Post Office turns a profit? Really, Faun? Care to explain why they've had to borrow 16 billion dollars from the Treasury in order to keep running? Duh?

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

I say they charge less because they don't have to make a profit -- and your deformed brain somehow translates that into me saying they do make a profit.

It's like you have less brain matter than Terri Schiavo had when she died.

 

[Faun]

Thanks, Trump! For giving the keys to the White House to Hillary. The more he speaks, the more she beats him in the polls...

Flashback March 1980: Reagan Faces Probable Defeat...
Flashback March 1980: Reagan Faces Probable Defeat - Trails Carter by 15 Points - The Gateway Pundit
2 days ago ... Reagan trailed Carter by 15 points in February-March 1980. ... At this point it is looking pretty clear that Trump can beat Clinton. ... In the only polls that matter, GOP turnout is enormously higher then the last 2 cycles, while Dem...

The Establishment is going NUTS!

So? Carter's final year was his worst. There was a recession. Unemployment went from 6% to 8%. The Iranian hostage situation dragged on through the entire year. There was a failed rescue attempt. Gas prices sky rocketed.

So yes, of course events can change the direction of an election. And of course, if something explosive occurs blowing up Hillary's campaign, she can lose this election. But barring that, get used to saying, Madame President, by this time next year.

Your desperation is noted and disgarded. You'll need far more than that to flip the polls.

Someone in the business that should know WAY BETTER than Pawned!

• Reid: 'Never, Ever, Ever Underestimate Trump'
  Politico ^ | 3/23/16
  Harry Reid has advice for Democrats already celebrating Hillary Clinton as the next president: Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. No one should do that. I tried, others have tried. He's a hard guy to predict,” Reid said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “One of the most unorthodox candidates for the presidency in modern times. Certainly in modern times, post-modern times. A real unusual deal we have here."

Hillary may have a high unfavorable rating -- but Trump's is even higher.

CBS/NYT 3/20:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 57%

ABC/WP 3/6:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 67%

CNN/ORC 2/27:
Hillary: 55%
Trump: 60%

Quinnipiac 2/15:
Hillary: 58%
Trump: 57%

Political Figures: Hillary Clinton
Political Figures: Donald Trump

... what else ya got?

 

[Vigilante]

Flashback March 1980: Reagan Faces Probable Defeat...
Flashback March 1980: Reagan Faces Probable Defeat - Trails Carter by 15 Points - The Gateway Pundit
2 days ago ... Reagan trailed Carter by 15 points in February-March 1980. ... At this point it is looking pretty clear that Trump can beat Clinton. ... In the only polls that matter, GOP turnout is enormously higher then the last 2 cycles, while Dem...

The Establishment is going NUTS!

So? Carter's final year was his worst. There was a recession. Unemployment went from 6% to 8%. The Iranian hostage situation dragged on through the entire year. There was a failed rescue attempt. Gas prices sky rocketed.

So yes, of course events can change the direction of an election. And of course, if something explosive occurs blowing up Hillary's campaign, she can lose this election. But barring that, get used to saying, Madame President, by this time next year.

Your desperation is noted and disgarded. You'll need far more than that to flip the polls.

Someone in the business that should know WAY BETTER than Pawned!

• Reid: 'Never, Ever, Ever Underestimate Trump'
  Politico ^ | 3/23/16
  Harry Reid has advice for Democrats already celebrating Hillary Clinton as the next president: Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. No one should do that. I tried, others have tried. He's a hard guy to predict,” Reid said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “One of the most unorthodox candidates for the presidency in modern times. Certainly in modern times, post-modern times. A real unusual deal we have here."

Hillary may have a high unfavorable rating -- but Trump's is even higher.

CBS/NYT 3/20:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 57%

ABC/WP 3/6:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 67%

CNN/ORC 2/27:
Hillary: 55%
Trump: 60%

Quinnipiac 2/15:
Hillary: 58%
Trump: 57%

Political Figures: Hillary Clinton
Political Figures: Donald Trump

... what else ya got?

So what? Their negatives are just about EQUAL!

 

[dblack]

Flashback March 1980: Reagan Faces Probable Defeat...
Flashback March 1980: Reagan Faces Probable Defeat - Trails Carter by 15 Points - The Gateway Pundit
2 days ago ... Reagan trailed Carter by 15 points in February-March 1980. ... At this point it is looking pretty clear that Trump can beat Clinton. ... In the only polls that matter, GOP turnout is enormously higher then the last 2 cycles, while Dem...

The Establishment is going NUTS!

So? Carter's final year was his worst. There was a recession. Unemployment went from 6% to 8%. The Iranian hostage situation dragged on through the entire year. There was a failed rescue attempt. Gas prices sky rocketed.

So yes, of course events can change the direction of an election. And of course, if something explosive occurs blowing up Hillary's campaign, she can lose this election. But barring that, get used to saying, Madame President, by this time next year.

Your desperation is noted and disgarded. You'll need far more than that to flip the polls.

Someone in the business that should know WAY BETTER than Pawned!

• Reid: 'Never, Ever, Ever Underestimate Trump'
  Politico ^ | 3/23/16
  Harry Reid has advice for Democrats already celebrating Hillary Clinton as the next president: Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. No one should do that. I tried, others have tried. He's a hard guy to predict,” Reid said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “One of the most unorthodox candidates for the presidency in modern times. Certainly in modern times, post-modern times. A real unusual deal we have here."

Hillary may have a high unfavorable rating -- but Trump's is even higher.

CBS/NYT 3/20:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 57%

ABC/WP 3/6:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 67%

CNN/ORC 2/27:
Hillary: 55%
Trump: 60%

Quinnipiac 2/15:
Hillary: 58%
Trump: 57%

Political Figures: Hillary Clinton
Political Figures: Donald Trump

... what else ya got?

How awesome that the two leading candidates are both 'unfavorable'. Democracy FTW!

 

[Faun]

So? Carter's final year was his worst. There was a recession. Unemployment went from 6% to 8%. The Iranian hostage situation dragged on through the entire year. There was a failed rescue attempt. Gas prices sky rocketed.

So yes, of course events can change the direction of an election. And of course, if something explosive occurs blowing up Hillary's campaign, she can lose this election. But barring that, get used to saying, Madame President, by this time next year.

Your desperation is noted and disgarded. You'll need far more than that to flip the polls.

Someone in the business that should know WAY BETTER than Pawned!

• Reid: 'Never, Ever, Ever Underestimate Trump'
  Politico ^ | 3/23/16
  Harry Reid has advice for Democrats already celebrating Hillary Clinton as the next president: Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. No one should do that. I tried, others have tried. He's a hard guy to predict,” Reid said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “One of the most unorthodox candidates for the presidency in modern times. Certainly in modern times, post-modern times. A real unusual deal we have here."

Hillary may have a high unfavorable rating -- but Trump's is even higher.

CBS/NYT 3/20:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 57%

ABC/WP 3/6:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 67%

CNN/ORC 2/27:
Hillary: 55%
Trump: 60%

Quinnipiac 2/15:
Hillary: 58%
Trump: 57%

Political Figures: Hillary Clinton
Political Figures: Donald Trump

... what else ya got?

So what? Their negatives are just about EQUAL!

Yeah, equal if you ignore that Trump's unfavorable rating is higher than her's.

And again, there's this ....

... oh, wait .... that was from yesterday.... Hillary's average lead jumped up since then from 9.8 percentage points yesterday to 11.4 percentage points today...

Hillary's average lead over Trump has extended into double digit territory.

 

[Faun]

So? Carter's final year was his worst. There was a recession. Unemployment went from 6% to 8%. The Iranian hostage situation dragged on through the entire year. There was a failed rescue attempt. Gas prices sky rocketed.

So yes, of course events can change the direction of an election. And of course, if something explosive occurs blowing up Hillary's campaign, she can lose this election. But barring that, get used to saying, Madame President, by this time next year.

Your desperation is noted and disgarded. You'll need far more than that to flip the polls.

Someone in the business that should know WAY BETTER than Pawned!

• Reid: 'Never, Ever, Ever Underestimate Trump'
  Politico ^ | 3/23/16
  Harry Reid has advice for Democrats already celebrating Hillary Clinton as the next president: Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. No one should do that. I tried, others have tried. He's a hard guy to predict,” Reid said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “One of the most unorthodox candidates for the presidency in modern times. Certainly in modern times, post-modern times. A real unusual deal we have here."

Hillary may have a high unfavorable rating -- but Trump's is even higher.

CBS/NYT 3/20:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 57%

ABC/WP 3/6:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 67%

CNN/ORC 2/27:
Hillary: 55%
Trump: 60%

Quinnipiac 2/15:
Hillary: 58%
Trump: 57%

Political Figures: Hillary Clinton
Political Figures: Donald Trump

... what else ya got?

How awesome that the two leading candidates are both 'unfavorable'. Democracy FTW!

Possibly due to both sides favoring the candidate the other side hates the most.

 

[Vigilante]

Your desperation is noted and disgarded. You'll need far more than that to flip the polls.

Someone in the business that should know WAY BETTER than Pawned!

• Reid: 'Never, Ever, Ever Underestimate Trump'
  Politico ^ | 3/23/16
  Harry Reid has advice for Democrats already celebrating Hillary Clinton as the next president: Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. No one should do that. I tried, others have tried. He's a hard guy to predict,” Reid said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “One of the most unorthodox candidates for the presidency in modern times. Certainly in modern times, post-modern times. A real unusual deal we have here."

Hillary may have a high unfavorable rating -- but Trump's is even higher.

CBS/NYT 3/20:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 57%

ABC/WP 3/6:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 67%

CNN/ORC 2/27:
Hillary: 55%
Trump: 60%

Quinnipiac 2/15:
Hillary: 58%
Trump: 57%

Political Figures: Hillary Clinton
Political Figures: Donald Trump

... what else ya got?

So what? Their negatives are just about EQUAL!

Yeah, equal if you ignore that Trump's unfavorable rating is higher than her's.

And again, there's this ....

... oh, wait .... that was from yesterday.... Hillary's average lead jumped up since then from 9.8 percentage points yesterday to 11.4 percentage points today...

Hillary's average lead over Trump has extended into double digit territory.

Please, even up to a WEEK before election, Reagan was way behind. All that needs to happen is the FBI send down an INFORMATION of the Hildebeast,NOT even an indictment!

1. Late Upsets Are Rare, but Have Happened - Gallup
   Late Upsets Are Rare, but Have Happened
   Oct 27, 2008 ... Late front-runners lost the popular vote in 1980 and 2000 ... when the presidential candidate ahead in Gallup polling a week or so ... And in only one of these, in 1980, did the candidate who was behind (Ronald Reagan) pull ahead in ... between Carter and Reagan -- held one week before the election, on ...
   

 

[Faun]

Your desperation is noted and disgarded. You'll need far more than that to flip the polls.

Someone in the business that should know WAY BETTER than Pawned!

• Reid: 'Never, Ever, Ever Underestimate Trump'
  Politico ^ | 3/23/16
  Harry Reid has advice for Democrats already celebrating Hillary Clinton as the next president: Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. No one should do that. I tried, others have tried. He's a hard guy to predict,” Reid said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “One of the most unorthodox candidates for the presidency in modern times. Certainly in modern times, post-modern times. A real unusual deal we have here."

Hillary may have a high unfavorable rating -- but Trump's is even higher.

CBS/NYT 3/20:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 57%

ABC/WP 3/6:
Hillary: 52%
Trump: 67%

CNN/ORC 2/27:
Hillary: 55%
Trump: 60%

Quinnipiac 2/15:
Hillary: 58%
Trump: 57%

Political Figures: Hillary Clinton
Political Figures: Donald Trump

... what else ya got?

So what? Their negatives are just about EQUAL!

Yeah, equal if you ignore that Trump's unfavorable rating is higher than her's.

And again, there's this ....

... oh, wait .... that was from yesterday.... Hillary's average lead jumped up since then from 9.8 percentage points yesterday to 11.4 percentage points today...

Hillary's average lead over Trump has extended into double digit territory.

Please, even up to a WEEK before election, Reagan was way behind. All that needs to happen is the FBI send down an INFORMATION of the Hildebeast,NOT even an indictment!

1. Late Upsets Are Rare, but Have Happened - Gallup
   Late Upsets Are Rare, but Have Happened
   Oct 27, 2008 ... Late front-runners lost the popular vote in 1980 and 2000 ... when the presidential candidate ahead in Gallup polling a week or so ... And in only one of these, in 1980, did the candidate who was behind (Ronald Reagan) pull ahead in ... between Carter and Reagan -- held one week before the election, on ...

Sweet! Now you're calling yourself an idiot. Looks like we may finally agree on something.

Need I remind you what you posted earlier...?

Reagan took a lead in July.

 

[Vigilante]

I see you are still full of shit, as he lost it again in September through October, until a week before the election, as Gallup shows...perhaps this will help you, probably NOT, you're that DENSE!!!!

 

[Faun]

I see you are still full of shit, as he lost it again in September through October, until a week before the election, as Gallup shows...perhaps this will help you, probably NOT, you're that DENSE!!!!

How can I be full of shit when I posted a chart from YOUR link??



So were you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[Vigilante]

I see you are still full of shit, as he lost it again in September through October, until a week before the election, as Gallup shows...perhaps this will help you, probably NOT, you're that DENSE!!!!

How can I be full of shit when I posted chart from YOUR link??



So were you lying then or are you lying now?

Apparently YOU can't read a GRAPH... Fucking dummy!

 

[Faun]

I see you are still full of shit, as he lost it again in September through October, until a week before the election, as Gallup shows...perhaps this will help you, probably NOT, you're that DENSE!!!!

How can I be full of shit when I posted chart from YOUR link??



So were you lying then or are you lying now?

Apparently YOU can't read a GRAPH... Fucking dummy!

Now you're just being your usual stupid self.

YOU posted a link earlier which led to this chart...

That came from you.

If I can't read a chart, then show me where in this chart it shows Carter ahead of Reagan in October.....

 

[Vigilante]

......................................................................................................^
Right there! LOLOLOL!!!!

 

[Faun]

......................................................................................................^
Right there! LOLOLOL!!!!

It's fun watching vagisil run from his own posts.



You posted a link to this earlier....

Again, since you ran away from it the first time... where in this chart does it show Carter ahead of Reagan in October?

Why did you switch graphs?

Were you lying before or are you lying now?

So many questions ... so few answers.

 

[Vigilante]

I didn't post what you put up.I posted the graph from Gallup. I have no idea what you are posting, as usual! Go back and show me what post# I posted what you claimed i did...I can wait! LOLOL!

 

[Faun]

I didn't post what you put up.I posted the graph from Gallup. I have no idea what you are posting, as usual! Go back and show me what post# I posted what you claimed i did...I can wait! LOLOL!

Great, more evidence even you don't understand what you post.

In post #849, you posted a link to: Flashback March 1980: Reagan Faces Probable Defeat - Trails Carter by 15 Points - The Gateway Pundit

Now check out the chart in that link and realize you're just a fucking imbecile who has no idea what he posts.

And answer the question ... were you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[Vigilante]

I didn't post what you put up.I posted the graph from Gallup. I have no idea what you are posting, as usual! Go back and show me what post# I posted what you claimed i did...I can wait! LOLOL!

Great, more evidence even you don't understand what you post.

In post #849, you posted a link to: Flashback March 1980: Reagan Faces Probable Defeat - Trails Carter by 15 Points - The Gateway Pundit

Now check out the chart in that link and realize you're just a fucking imbecile who has no idea what he posts.

And answer the question ... were you lying then or are you lying now?

So YOU LIED and I DIDN'T POST that chart! Why would I check out that link when I have the CHART I did post?...You're so fucked up, as usual...and still OCDing about shit!