I need help with this whole "loyalty oath" thing.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why do you also ignore the parts that have been proven by several articles?

 

For the record, several articles have used the term "loyalty oath". So far I havn't seen anything that you could actually call a "loyalty oath". And nothing that remotely backs up Wiffles claims, which is all I'm asking for.

 

 

Are you saying just because when you google some phrase and get "several articles" about that phrase that makes the subject of the articles true?

 

 

 

Guess what, I just googled a phrase and got 36,500 hits. Damn, with that many articles about it the phrase must be true............using your logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What phrase did I use: "bill clinton raped juanita broderick"

 

I'm sure you will agree this must be true, that is if you are gonna be consistant in your logic.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Like people actually have a copy of the focking thing?

 

 

Apparently not.

 

Which is odd for something so well known, widely distributed, and contraversial.

[Snoopy1 0]

For the record, several articles have used the term "loyalty oath". So far I havn't seen anything that you could actually call a "loyalty oath".

 

 

Hmmm, let's see use the definition according to every journalist/pundit/lawyer who described it, or RP......

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Hmmm, let's see use the definition according to every journalist/pundit/lawyer who described it, or RP......

 

 

"I ___________________ do hereby endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States"

 

Endorce does not equal an oath, Moron. Also, exactly what is the endorsement for?

 

"Reelection of the United States"????? WTF? Did I miss something? Did we vote Bush out of the United States? WTF does "Reelection of the United States" mean?

 

Your link looks more like something a Demwitmoveon.org Party troll photoshopped than something Karl Rove come up with. But hey, so far it's the best ya got. Do you have a photo of the reverse side where it requires you to promise to vote for Bush, prove you are a Republican, and promise not to boo Bush?

[Snoopy1 0]

"I ___________________ do hereby endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States"

 

Endorce does not equal an oath, Moron. Also, exactly what is the endorsement for?

 

"Reelection of the United States"????? WTF? Did I miss something? Did we vote Bush out of the United States? WTF does "Reelection of the United States" mean?

 

RP once again having to spin...'that doesn't mean what everyone else says it means'. Sorry RP, the world doesn't live in accordance to how you define things.

 

 

Your link looks more like something a Demwitmoveon.org Party troll photoshopped than something Karl Rove come up with. But hey, so far it's the best ya got.

 

 

But strangely, nearly every article mentioning this, states that it said exatly what my link showed.

 

 

Do you have a photo of the reverse side where it requires you to promise to vote for Bush, prove you are a Republican, and promise not to boo Bush?

 

Already answered, so I'll just cut and paste.

 

 

Evil Number produces three links.

MDC replies

You respond to him, I quote that post, and provide the link.

 

If that wasn't clear enough,

The articles that several geeks mentioned were referencing this document.

 

 

No where did I say that the document I produced was the same one Wiffle made mention to. Anyone with half-a- brain(understands why you wouldn't get it) would see by following the quotes backwards I was referencing Evil number.

 

Keep providing with more lame excuses and reasons. It's always good for a chuckle watching you make a fool out of yourself.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Keep providing with more lame excuses and reasons. It's always good for a chuckle watching you make a fool out of yourself.

 

 

LMFAO

 

I have provided no excuses or reasons. I asked for someone to show me this "loyalty oath" that requires all the things Wiffle claims it requires.

 

You and your Demwitmoveon.org Party Trolls have been jumping through hoops, making more outlandish claims (such as I'm making a fool out of myself), and providing nothing that shows anything remotely resembling what Wiffle claims.

 

You and your minions can continue to call me names, claim to be proving something, and sucking each other's cack all you want..........still deosn't change the fact you can't provide anything to prove what Wiffle claims.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Does not change the fact that you are still a torrid lite fool...who has been owned by several articles now.

 

More name calling.............and someone finally pulled out "owned". Gotta love it.

 

Hey Sho Nuff, re-read post #35 and get back to me.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No where did I say that the document I produced was the same one Wiffle made mention to.

 

Nice job. You are the King of posting links to stuff totally unrelated to the discussion at hand.

 

Congrats.

[Sho Nuff 720]

LMFAO

 

I have provided no excuses or reasons. I asked for someone to show me this "loyalty oath" that requires all the things Wiffle claims it requires.

 

You and your Demwitmoveon.org Party Trolls have been jumping through hoops, making more outlandish claims (such as I'm making a fool out of myself), and providing nothing that shows anything remotely resembling what Wiffle claims.

 

You and your minions can continue to call me names, claim to be proving something, and sucking each other's cack all you want..........still deosn't change the fact you can't provide anything to prove what Wiffle claims.

 

A. Never been to moveon.org...nor am I a supporter of the democratic party.

B. You calling anyone else a troll is laughable.

C. Nobody has the document...but many have pointed to several articles describing the document...just say you don't believe the articles...but quit this spin of we don't have it so it must not be true.

D. You are making a fool out of yourself, that is far from an outlandish claim.

E. Yes, we have shown several articles now that clearly state the oath contained language endorsing the president and saying you agree to vote for him.

F. You whining about namecalling is extremely laughable and hypocritical.

G. It has been proven, you refuse the proof that has been given to you.

 

And the biggest one.

H. You cannot refute a single one of those articles, the focking RNC admits they use the damn things.

 

You cannot be anymore owned than you are in this thread...yet you are still flailing around because nobody has the document on them and scanned it in for you to focking read.

 

You have actually become worse than Torrid.

[Snoopy1 0]

Nice job. You are the King of posting links to stuff totally unrelated to the discussion at hand.

 

Congrats.

 

 

Congrats, you are the King of Selective Reading.

 

The articles that several geeks mentioned were referencing this document.

[Sho Nuff 720]

More name calling.............and someone finally pulled out "owned". Gotta love it.

 

Hey Sho Nuff, re-read post #35 and get back to me.

 

Do you need me to link to every single time you have called someone a name on this board?

The gerbil would quit...there is not enough bandwidth to cover that.

 

Post 35...you mean the one I addressed and admitted my error? Oh...and the post where you called me a moron...which gets back to my point above.

Good one.

 

Why don't you refer to the article in post 40 and try refuting any piece of information in that article.

Here is a link to the post just in case you are too slow to find it.

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...t&p=3324295

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The Demwitmoveon.org trolls are slower than even I could imagine.

 

Ok, let's recap:

 

Wiffle made a claim about a "loyalty oath" and all the requirements of it.

 

I asked for a link to the "loyalty oath" because the requirements Wiffle claimed were in it seemed rediculous. We have had many a troll link to many an article containing the phrase "loyalty oath".

 

What we DO NOT have is a form called a "loyalty oath"

 

Nor do we have anything that lists the requirements claimed by Wiffle.

 

So, the trolls are left with name calling and "owned". Good grief, even Wiffle slinked away several posts ago. Snoopy and Sho Nuff need to get a clue and give up.....................or keep posting drivel for my amusement.

 

Like I said in a previous post, I have 36,500 articles about Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broderick but I doubt either of you Demwitmoveon.org zombies would admit he actually raped her, or agree that simply by being able to link to several articles the story must be true. But that is the logic you are left with.

 

Good luck with that.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Post 35...you mean the one I addressed and admitted my error? Oh...and the post where you called me a moron...which gets back to my point above.

 

 

Something tells me you weren't even smart enough to ride the short bus to school.

 

 

Just to clarify: In post #35 you did nothing, it was my post. Ya know the one where I referenced your post #28 where you linked Wiffle's claim that you had to sign the "loyalty oath" that said you "promised to vote for Bush" and just after that you asked:

 

"Where is this claim that the oath says you must agree to vote for him?"

 

Forgive me for calling you a moron just because you linked to something that answered the question you asked just after the link.

 

Something tells me you will be unable to comprehend this.

[Angry White Male 0]

RP

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

J

Demwit trolls

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why don't you refer to the article in post 40 and try refuting any piece of information in that article.

 

Okeedokee, I'll refer to it.

 

Um, it doesn't answer any questions I posed in the original post of this thread.

 

You really should stick to defending raghead terrorists................you have a better leg to stand on with that argument than you have on this subject......which is sad and comical at the same time.

[MDC 7,407]

Okeedokee, I'll refer to it.

 

Um, it doesn't answer any questions I posed in the original post of this thread.

 

You really should stick to defending raghead terrorists................you have a better leg to stand on with that argument than you have on this subject......which is sad and comical at the same time.

 

Holy chit, Recliner Joe is STILL denying this? First, he gets absolutely focking throttled in the other thread, link after link proving him totally wrong. But making a huge focking assclown out of himself isn't good enough for RP, nope, he starts a second thread to advertise his stupidity, gets owned all over again, and still he's too focking dumb to admit it.

 

For that, you are now officially Doosh of the Year.

 

Your prize is on the way. Tomorrow, the UPS truck rolls up to Recliner Douchefock's trailerpark and RP runs out of the trailer jumping up and down and giggling like a retard who just won the 5 meter dash at the Special Olympics. The driver drops off a package - it's huge! And heavy! Recliner Douchefock brings it inside, rips it open and surprise! Out jumps a humongous black dude wearing nothing but a gimp mask, he mushroom stamps you across the forehead with his cack and while you're writhing on the floor with agony, bends you over and ravages your slimy chimphole, then when he's done he pinches off a sloppy chit cone onto your face, covers it with Miracle Whip with a cherry on top and says "Congratulations Recliner Douchefock! You are now officially DOUCHE OF THE YEAR!!!!!"

 

You deeeeed eeeeeet!!!!!!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Wow.

 

One would think by MDC's rant (and gay dreams of what he wants some black guy to do to him) someone had actually brought something that people had to sign at Bush rallies that required:

 

You to prove you were Republican

You to promise to vote for Bush

You wouldn't boo Bush.

 

Did I miss it?

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I still don't understand why this is such a big deal?

 

They don't want nutjobs like "code pink" screwing with his speeches...where's the problem?

[Sho Nuff 720]

The Demwitmoveon.org trolls are slower than even I could imagine.

 

Ok, let's recap:

 

Wiffle made a claim about a "loyalty oath" and all the requirements of it.

 

I asked for a link to the "loyalty oath" because the requirements Wiffle claimed were in it seemed rediculous. We have had many a troll link to many an article containing the phrase "loyalty oath".

 

What we DO NOT have is a form called a "loyalty oath"

 

Nor do we have anything that lists the requirements claimed by Wiffle.

 

So, the trolls are left with name calling and "owned". Good grief, even Wiffle slinked away several posts ago. Snoopy and Sho Nuff need to get a clue and give up.....................or keep posting drivel for my amusement.

 

Like I said in a previous post, I have 36,500 articles about Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broderick but I doubt either of you Demwitmoveon.org zombies would admit he actually raped her, or agree that simply by being able to link to several articles the story must be true. But that is the logic you are left with.

 

Good luck with that.

 

What we have is an article stating exactly as wiffle did...not just one...but many.

You simply chose to not believe what is in those articles.

 

You know that nobody is going to have a copy of the thing...so instead of actually refuting any of the article with a single fact...you post this ridiculous challenge and thump your torridlike chest.

 

You are a complete idiot.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Something tells me you weren't even smart enough to ride the short bus to school.

Just to clarify: In post #35 you did nothing, it was my post. Ya know the one where I referenced your post #28 where you linked Wiffle's claim that you had to sign the "loyalty oath" that said you "promised to vote for Bush" and just after that you asked:

 

"Where is this claim that the oath says you must agree to vote for him?"

 

Forgive me for calling you a moron just because you linked to something that answered the question you asked just after the link.

 

Something tells me you will be unable to comprehend this.

 

Talk about being slow and needing the short bus.

Read what I wrote again...post #35...the one I addressed. Not the one I posted...but addressed...you freakin idiot.

I admitted my mistake already...I addressed that mistake...yet you bring it up again...which is what I just focking said (and you don't get it).

 

But you whine about other people calling you names...and do the exact same focking thing...because you a hypocritical doosh.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I still don't understand why this is such a big deal?

 

They don't want nutjobs like "code pink" screwing with his speeches...where's the problem?

 

Anybody?....

[Sho Nuff 720]

Okeedokee, I'll refer to it.

 

Um, it doesn't answer any questions I posed in the original post of this thread.

 

You really should stick to defending raghead terrorists................you have a better leg to stand on with that argument than you have on this subject......which is sad and comical at the same time.

 

Umm...it specifically talks about a pledge to vote for the president...and endorse the president...

Two items you simply cannot refute...which is why you don't try...because you know you cannot.

 

The only thing correct with this thread...is that you need help.

 

Ahh...I see you are again reduced to lying about me. care to post one single time I have ever defended a terrorist?

 

If by a better leg to stand on...you mean the factual arguments I have laid out that completely show what a focktard you are...then yes. But I have done that in the Islam threads...as well as this one.

 

The only thing sad and comical is your denial on this board in all threads where you simply cannot handle using facts to support your ridiculous stances. Just like torrid.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I still don't understand why this is such a big deal?

 

They don't want nutjobs like "code pink" screwing with his speeches...where's the problem?

 

Its a public speech...make people sign something that says you won't mess with the speech...but don't refuse people the opportunity to see either the Pres or VP unless they pledge this type of "loyalty" or "endorse" him...or promise to vote for him (all things laid out in the articles that RP still denies).

 

I agree its not a huge issue...but its being made bigger because of a focktard who won't just admit he is wrong.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Its a public speech...make people sign something that says you won't mess with the speech...but don't refuse people the opportunity to see either the Pres or VP unless they pledge this type of "loyalty" or "endorse" him...or promise to vote for him (all things laid out in the articles that RP still denies).

 

I agree its not a huge issue...but its being made bigger because of a focktard who won't just admit he is wrong.

 

 

Ya I understand the whole loyalty oath takes it a bit far, but I think the main purpose is to keep people from disrupting the speech..or asking difficult questions. But all politicians try and stay away from an interview where they may be challenged on something they'd rather not discuss. It's the same reason you usually only see Bush or people from his administration get interviewed on foxnews...the other networks won't give him soft questions like foxnews will...and you usually see democratic candidates stay away from foxnews for the opposite reason. As much as I hate Hillary...gotta give her credit for going on foxnews last weekend.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If by a better leg to stand on...you mean the factual arguments I have laid out that completely show what a focktard you are...then yes.

 

The only thing sad and comical is your denial on this board in all threads where you simply cannot handle using facts to support your ridiculous stances.

 

A few FACTS for ya:

 

Wiffle claimed this "loyalty oath" REQUIRED:

 

1. You to prove you are a Republican

2. A promise to vote for President Bush.

3. A promise not to criticize, boo, or disrupt Bush.

 

 

Fact: This thread simply asked someone to show me this "loyalty oath" that says all that.

 

 

Fact: Nobody has. Not you, not Wiffle, not David Ruffin, not Evil Number, not MDC, not Snoopy, not anyone.

 

 

So Sho Nuff, call me a focktard all you want. It will not change the FACTS as I have laid them out.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What we have is an article stating exactly as wiffle did...not just one...but many.

 

Um no, the article didn't claim all the things Wiffle did. And even if it did it wouldn't prove a thing without actually showing a copy of the "loyalty oath".

 

Once again I will ask (and you will avoid): If I post "not just one", but "many" articles saying Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broderick will you say it must be true?

 

Turning your twisted logic around on you hurts, doesn't it Sho Nuff.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Um no, the article didn't claim all the things Wiffle did. And even if it did it wouldn't prove a thing without actually showing a copy of the "loyalty oath".

 

Once again I will ask (and you will avoid): If I post "not just one", but "many" articles saying Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broderick will you say it must be true?

 

Turning your twisted logic around on you hurts, doesn't it Sho Nuff.

 

 

I can't show you a live picture of a dinosaur either. Does that mean that they didn't exist, Mr. Carl Everett?

 

 

 

BTW - I don't really want into this debate because I think it is dumb, but this "show me" or I don't believe thing gets a little crazy. I am just a little bored waiting for the Yanks to blow another 3 run lead.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I can't show you a live picture of a dinosaur either. Does that mean that they didn't exist, Mr. Carl Everett?

BTW - I don't really want into this debate because I think it is dumb, but this "show me" or I don't believe thing gets a little crazy. I am just a little bored waiting for the Yanks to blow another 3 run lead.

 

I have never disputed the Reps required people to sign something. However, Wiffle made several claims that seemed to me to be rediculous. I have simply asked for proof these claims are true.

 

After many Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls chiming in with nothing more than links to articles with the phrase "loyalty oath", and lame personal attacks on me, there has been nothing that shows Wiffle's claims to be true.

 

Should be the end of the story, but the likes of Sho Nuff still believe posting "owned" and personal attacks against me somehow proves me wrong. I find the whole thing amusing.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I have never disputed the Reps required people to sign something. However, Wiffle made several claims that seemed to me to be rediculous. I have simply asked for proof these claims are true.

 

After many Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls chiming in with nothing more than links to articles with the phrase "loyalty oath", and lame personal attacks on me, there has been nothing that shows Wiffle's claims to be true.

 

Should be the end of the story, but the likes of Sho Nuff still believe posting "owned" and personal attacks against me somehow proves me wrong. I find the whole thing amusing.

 

Well, I would definitely be interested in what people were required to sign. I think that it is an extremely critical thing to know.

 

 

 

 

... three years ago

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Well, I would definitely be interested in what people were required to sign. I think that it is an extremely critical thing to know.

... three years ago

 

 

Wiffle was interested enough to make the claims. I'm just interested in finding out if they are true.

 

And it seems several Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls have a big stake in what they were required to sign.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Wiffle was interested enough to make the claims. I'm just interested in finding out if they are true.

 

And it seems several Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls have a big stake in what they were required to sign.

 

Meh. Who cares. They handpicked the audience and the questions. It was covered at the time that it happened. Why should anyone be shocked? Especially now

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Meh. Who cares.

 

 

Ask Wiffle, he brought it up.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Ask Wiffle, he brought it up.

 

I will bet that the Dems pull the same crap.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I will bet that the Dems pull the same crap.

 

 

I call bullchit!

 

Hitlery packs her audiences with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy just to keep her on her toes.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I call bullchit!

 

Hitlery packs her audiences with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy just to keep her on her cankles.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Yer mean.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Yer honest.

 

Yes I am

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

[Sho Nuff 720]

I have never disputed the Reps required people to sign something. However, Wiffle made several claims that seemed to me to be rediculous. I have simply asked for proof these claims are true.

 

After many Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls chiming in with nothing more than links to articles with the phrase "loyalty oath", and lame personal attacks on me, there has been nothing that shows Wiffle's claims to be true.

 

Should be the end of the story, but the likes of Sho Nuff still believe posting "owned" and personal attacks against me somehow proves me wrong. I find the whole thing amusing.

 

We have proved the claims to be true...you just don't accept the proof.

You only are asking for the actual oath, because you know its something none of us have at this point. You think asking for something you know we don't have proves something...but it just proves you have become torrid.

 

Its not posting owned that proves you wrong...its what else has gone on that has proven you wrong and made you owned.

And again whining about personal attacks? You are the king of attacking people personally...hypocrite.

 

Amusing is you whining about personal attacks in the same post where you call people "Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls".

 

The links are to articles about the loyalty oath, about promising to vote for Bush (one of the claims), about endorsing Bush (one of the claims). You simply don't accept it...and thats fine...you are entitled to be a complete doosh if you wish.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Wiffle was interested enough to make the claims. I'm just interested in finding out if they are true.

 

And it seems several Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls have a big stake in what they were required to sign.

 

You can keep using that ridiculous name for anyone opposing your ridiculous stance here...will not make it true.

 

Link to me being a dem? A Demwit? Link to me ever going to moveon.org? See how that works?

 

Those of us pointing things out to you have no stake in what was required...but seems you do in defending it and whining about it and denying what is out there.

 

You are not interested in finding out if the claims are true...you are interested in being a complete ######. There are several articles posted now giving you exactly what you need...telling you that the claims are true. But you don't accept anything other than a copy of the actual "loyalty oath". Its focking pathetic.