Who Was I Wiff?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

 

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

 

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and ( The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

 

A Democracy

 

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

 

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

 

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

 

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

 

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

 

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

 

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

 

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

 

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

 

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

 

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

 

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

 

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

 

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

 

A Republic

 

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

 

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

 

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

 

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

 

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

 

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

 

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

 

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

 

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

 

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Republic vs. Democracy

 

Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

 

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

 

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three banches of government, the Supreme Court and individual jurors (jury-nullification). Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums. A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob. A more recent example was the failure of the US Senate to uphold their oath "to do impartial justice" and remove bill clinton from office. Those Senators should be removed themselves, for failure to uphold their oath and for aiding and abetting a known criminal. If you would like to help remove them, E-mail me.

 

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

 

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a republic.

 

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,

 

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...",

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

 

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

 

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

 

DEMOCRACY:

 

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

 

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.

Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,

 

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So Rusty just admitted he's RP? I suspected as much.

 

Gutterslut wannabe.

 

I thought you were above us alia and was gonna put us all ognore. You shoulda, mebbe you wouldn't continue to make a fool of yourself as often.

[parrot 789]

You are some sad, strange, grown ass men.

 

[kpbuckeye 3]

What a stupid shiit. There are multiple types of "democracies" - see my last post. America is a Democracy. It's also a specific FORM of Democracy - a Representative Democracy.

 

Man, are you truly stupid or do you just not have any friends that pay any attention to you? - The whole "negative attention is better than no attention" disorder. - 'Cause there's some five-year olds that you'd probably get along with.

 

 

 

this is priceless coming from the bored attention wh0re.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Republic vs. Democracy

 

blah, blah, blah.

 

Can we get the Cliff Notes version? The alias filter on this machine limits things to 50 words or less.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Can we get the Cliff Notes version? The alias filter on this machine limits things to 50 words or less.

 

 

No thanks. Your ilk has been sending Kennedy's to DC for the past 50 years, so the rest of America has given up on ever hoping you will get anything right.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

No thanks. Your ilk has been sending Kennedy's to DC for the past 50 years, so the rest of America has given up on ever hoping you will get anything right.

You sent Bush to DC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Game, Set, Match

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You sent Bush to DC.

 

America sent Bush to DC.

 

Your ilk put up Owlgore and John Kerry to compete.

 

 

 

Game, set, match.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

America sent Bush to DC.

 

 

You keep thinking that, Rusty.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You keep thinking that, Rusty.

 

I see you have joined the Wiffleslut express...........lose an argument and resort to "you are an alias".

 

[FeelingMN 273]

Bunny, why did you take such exception to wiff implying you're an alias when you've faced the same accusation in other threads from other posters?

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I see you have joined the Wiffleslut express...........lose an argument and resort to "you are an alias".

 

 

 

You have to admit that was funny. I don't care who you are.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

Bunny, why did you take such exception to wiff implying you're an alias when you've faced the same accusation in other threads from other posters?

 

 

 

Because he accused me multiple times. Because he accused me, it's up to him to prove I was a previous poster here. I got the occasional "Alias" BS from others. But wiff's is constant. Lose a debate, accuse others of..... alias. He is wrong and he knows it. I know he is wrong. Anyone who has looked back knows he's wrong. If this were the "olden times", we would be standing paces apart deciding this like men. He's a pvssy with an agenda. Wait....I would be there, not him. If I let it go, he wins. He challenged me, and I challenged him back. If I win, he has an embelishment on his scorecard. He will never be wrong in his mind and never give in because of it. That's his agenda. Because he is wrong, his accusations of others being aliases fall on deaf ears to most, except the ones being accused. I called him out on accusing me of being an alias because I was sick of the accusation that limits his arguments. How easy is it to say, " You are an alias." Debate the facts dipshit. He has yet to prove anything resembling his remark that I am not who I say I am. He can't. And he won't! That is my point in all of this. He is the guy you knew growing up that would never shake the others hand after he was beaten in whatever contest they were involved in. He's a sore loser and he needs to understand that. That's why I'm here on this thread defending who I am. It's as simple as that.

 

I'm not going anywhere. I will post this and bump it everyday. I even offered him an olive branch to settle this. He declined.

[FeelingMN 273]

Because he accused me multiple times. Because he accused me, it's up to him to prove I was a previous poster here. I got the occasional "Alias" BS from others. But wiff's is constant. Lose a debate, accuse others of..... alias. He is wrong and he knows it. I know he is wrong. Anyone who has looked back knows he's wrong. If this were the "olden times", we would be standing paces apart deciding this like men. He's a pvssy with an agenda. Wait....I would be there, not him. If I let it go, he wins. He challenged me, and I challenged him back. If I win, he has an embelishment on his scorecard. He will never be wrong in his mind and never give in because of it. That's his agenda. Because he is wrong, his accusations of others being aliases fall on deaf ears to most, except the ones being accused. I called him out on accusing me of being an alias because I was sick of the accusation that limits his arguments. How easy is it to say, " You are an alias." Debate the facts dipshit. He has yet to prove anything resembling his remark that I am not who I say I am. He can't. And he won't! That is my point in all of this. He is the guy you knew growing up that would never shake the others hand after he was beaten in whatever contest they were involved in. He's a sore loser and he needs to understand that. That's why I'm here on this thread defending who I am. It's as simple as that.

 

I'm not going anywhere. I will post this and bump it everyday. I even offered him an olive branch to settle this. He declined.

 

 

Dunno man, kinda think you're taking this a bit too seriously. wiff grates on people. Sh!t happens. In fact, if you look at any day's top 20, it's probably safe to assume that 75% of those fockers are pr!cks in some way. Post enough and you'll find a way to rub people the wrong way. But dude, it's an internet message focking board. Take it all with a grain of salt. I mean, at the end of the day you still have a wife who lov.......sorry. On second thought, I guess this stuff is more important to some than others.

 

I just think you expose yourself as some pathetic loser rather than portraying wiff in a negative light. Seriously? If you win?????? Scorecard?????? Agenda????

 

Dude, get a grip!

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

WE NEED A LIFE IN THE WORST WAY? How much time did you spend looking up those old "Bunny" names? It's been over ten days and we get a list of previous posters with "Bunny" in them, today. Good job. Let me take it one step further. I'll do some homework for ya wiff.

 

My first posts were all football related and posted on the MAIN bored. I joined on 8/10/07. The first post I made at FFToday was on 9/5/07. This was my first post on the Main bored- http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...BunnysBastatrds

 

I posted close to a hundred times on the main bored, but not one time on the geek bored from the time I joined on 8/10/07 until 12/02/08. This was my first post on the geek bored- http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...BunnysBastatrds

So I went over fifteen months from the time I joined FFToday till I posted my first post on the geek bored.

 

You keeping up wiff? Is it sinking in yet? Is that what geek aliases do around here? They get kicked out or decide one day that they want to change their name and become an alias? They then rejoin and concentrate on football and stay away from the geek bored for over fifteen months? They then wait for the right time to jump back on the geek bored and become a geek again? Is that how it works? Or maybe one day I just happend to be on a friends computer and saw a site I had never heard of. I go on FFToday and see some pretty cool FF sh!t. I draft a bad team the first year using it as my main online information. The next year I decide to stick with it. And I win the championship for the first time. When the 08 season comes to an end, I get pretty bored after all the excitement of winning and there's nothing going on on the main bored. Someone on the main bored refers to the geek bored. I go check it out. I notice there are some funny people there and decide to come back. And doing what geeks do, I kept coming back. Hmmmmmmm?

 

My history of posts is only six pages. Go to search and type in BunnysBastatrds. There is my short history from my time here. You are wrong. Get over it. It won't be the last time.

 

 

You see.....It's people like wiff that make a good day....even better!!!!!

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

What does being on "ignore" mean? Apparently sh!t.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

Dunno man, kinda think you're taking this a bit too seriously. wiff grates on people. Sh!t happens. In fact, if you look at any day's top 20, it's probably safe to assume that 75% of those fockers are pr!cks in some way. Post enough and you'll find a way to rub people the wrong way. But dude, it's an internet message focking board. Take it all with a grain of salt. I mean, at the end of the day you still have a wife who lov.......sorry. On second thought, I guess this stuff is more important to some than others.

 

I just think you expose yourself as some pathetic loser rather than portraying wiff in a negative light. Seriously? If you win?????? Scorecard?????? Agenda????

 

Dude, get a grip!

 

You bang on me and not wifff? Why is that? Go fawk yourself and ask questions later!!!! Handjobs are needed! Look down and UNDERSTAND!!! Got it? Or, have it? Wiff is wrong! I'm not giving in ######!!! Here to stay!!! Got a problem with that??? Then look away! Don't come here anymore. It's that simple. Get it?

[gocolts 300]

Because he accused me multiple times. Because he accused me, it's up to him to prove I was a previous poster here. I got the occasional "Alias" BS from others. But wiff's is constant. Lose a debate, accuse others of..... alias. He is wrong and he knows it. I know he is wrong. Anyone who has looked back knows he's wrong. If this were the "olden times", we would be standing paces apart deciding this like men. He's a pvssy with an agenda. Wait....I would be there, not him. If I let it go, he wins. He challenged me, and I challenged him back. If I win, he has an embelishment on his scorecard. He will never be wrong in his mind and never give in because of it. That's his agenda. Because he is wrong, his accusations of others being aliases fall on deaf ears to most, except the ones being accused. I called him out on accusing me of being an alias because I was sick of the accusation that limits his arguments. How easy is it to say, " You are an alias." Debate the facts dipshit. He has yet to prove anything resembling his remark that I am not who I say I am. He can't. And he won't! That is my point in all of this. He is the guy you knew growing up that would never shake the others hand after he was beaten in whatever contest they were involved in. He's a sore loser and he needs to understand that. That's why I'm here on this thread defending who I am. It's as simple as that.

 

I'm not going anywhere. I will post this and bump it everyday. I even offered him an olive branch to settle this. He declined.

Seems like many folks have posted similar sentiments about this wiffleball clown. You, like most of the bored I imagine, have him figured out. It is quite clear after just how many different posters have noticed how wiffleball handles himself here. It seems to me that a lot of posters have came to the same type conclusion of this obviously disturbed person we know as wiffleball.

 

I guess it could possibly be just schtick, but I don't think so anymore. He is the type of guy who thinks "I really pwned RP today" right before he goes to sleep. He goes on and on about how some posters take this place too seriously and then proceeds to talk to his friends who don't even visit this place about posters here. He likes to rag on someone and say they have mental issues because they mention they took paxil or something once when he is easily the most delusional focker on the bored, and that's saying something. It is amazing at just how far and at what lengths he will go to look into posters' posts while telling everyone that THEY take this place too seriosly. It is beyond belief at this point.

[FlaHawker 24]

Seems like many folks have posted similar sentiments about this wiffleball clown. You, like most of the bored I imagine, have him figured out. It is quite clear after just how many different posters have noticed how wiffleball handles himself here. It seems to me that a lot of posters have came to the same type conclusion of this obviously disturbed person we know as wiffleball.

 

I guess it could possibly be just schtick, but I don't think so anymore. He is the type of guy who thinks "I really pwned RP today" right before he goes to sleep. He goes on and on about how some posters take this place too seriously and then proceeds to talk to his friends who don't even visit this place about posters here. He likes to rag on someone and say they have mental issues because they mention they took paxil or something once when he is easily the most delusional focker on the bored, and that's saying something. It is amazing at just how far and at what lengths he will go to look into posters' posts while telling everyone that THEY take this place too seriosly. It is beyond belief at this point.

A winner

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Seems like many folks have posted similar sentiments about this wiffleball clown. You, like most of the bored I imagine, have him figured out. It is quite clear after just how many different posters have noticed how wiffleball handles himself here. It seems to me that a lot of posters have came to the same type conclusion of this obviously disturbed person we know as wiffleball.

 

I guess it could possibly be just schtick, but I don't think so anymore. He is the type of guy who thinks "I really pwned RP today" right before he goes to sleep. He goes on and on about how some posters take this place too seriously and then proceeds to talk to his friends who don't even visit this place about posters here. He likes to rag on someone and say they have mental issues because they mention they took paxil or something once when he is easily the most delusional focker on the bored, and that's saying something. It is amazing at just how far and at what lengths he will go to look into posters' posts while telling everyone that THEY take this place too seriosly. It is beyond belief at this point.

 

Jeez, wiff has really gotten under your skin, huh? Maybe you should just toughen up and be a man?

[kpbuckeye 3]

Maybe you should just toughen up and be a man?

 

hi pot

 

you just gave the kettle a BJ

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

I set him up for the big fall earlier today. Too funny!! And that was fun. After he called me retarded, it was easy. I set him up with a left right combo that Ali couldn't handle. Gave him some porn insight, and that was all she wrote. As I recall, he thanked me. He then cried about his job and some other BS!! After I set him up for the big fall, he was . The funny thing is, he claims to have us on IGNORE. As soon as I post something to get his attention, there he is. And all it took was some lame porn.

 

Again! Who was I wiffle?

[gocolts 300]

Jeez, wiff has really gotten under your skin, huh? Maybe you should just toughen up and be a man?

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Jeez, wiff has really gotten under your skin, huh? Maybe you should just toughen up and be a man?

 

 

Mebbe you should get Wiffleslut's cack out of your mouf long enough to tell him he should be a man and back up his multitude of accusations claiming several posters are just the same guy.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Mebbe you should get Wiffleslut's cack out of your mouf long enough to tell him he should be a man and back up his multitude of accusations claiming several posters are just the same guy.

 

Thanks for the suggestion Rusty Pilot.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Thanks for the suggestion Rusty Pilot.

 

Yep, you have such a hold on his cack you are using his schtick. Lose an argument and whine "ALIAS"

 

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

Did everyone else have a great weekend? A great festival Saturday. Golf on Sunday. Got a bj from the mrs before leaving to play golf. That was a first. I almost forgot who I was. Shot an 83.

[NorthernVike 2,083]

Did everyone else have a great weekend? A great festival Saturday. Golf on Sunday. Got a bj from the mrs before leaving to play golf. That was a first. I almost forgot who I was. Shot a load and then an 83.

 

 

I call BS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's no way you shot a 83

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

I call BS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's no way you shot a 83

 

 

The more I think about it, you're right. I didn't take a penalty on one shot. The one where I promised not to cvm on her chin. It lipped out and I didn't take the stroke.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

I wish i could....be another!!! Who wiff? Who? Three weeks almost. And still nothing from wiff on who! I wonder why? He must have given up on who I was wiff.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

My head keeps spinning round and round she says! Who am I wiff? It's on you biotch!!!! Who ever smelt it, dealt it! Just admit it! You ran across someone who is .................? Not who you thought? Still not going anywhere. Got a light?

[gocolts 300]

bump for wiffle

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

Wiff writes an "Ode" to the late nighters and forgets about his commitments here from the day timers. Or his reponsibilities to prove substance in his claims during peak hours. Or lack there of. Hmmmmm. Crassic BS from him? I think so. You wiff? So far, you have proven what a complete waste you are of time. Your arguments lack "Ode" and you can't back any of them up. Insults rule the day? I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims that I am not who I say I am! Again, i'm not going anywhere till I get an answer from you. WHO WAS I? I may be pathetic for keeping this vigil up, but you are just as pathetic for calling "alias" and going away, pretending I do not exist.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

Cee U Next Tuesday.............Wiff? Got a lot on the plate. Mandatory girls softball meeting for new coaches 8,9,10. And Saints Draft Day Party for Saturday at Zephyr Field. Jazz Fest on Sunday (Dave Mathews and Earth Wind & Fire). Golf Tourney on Monday (scramble at Riverlands C.C.) I might find time to reposistion my posistion. Still thinking about your lack of proof. Be back soon!

[Lionsjunkie 1]

Mebbe you should get Wiffleslut's cack out of your mouf long enough to tell him he should be a man and back up his multitude of accusations claiming several posters are just the same guy.

 

Gutterslut....is that you gutterslut

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

It's Tuesday. How are you wiffflenut? I see you have me on ignore.

[kpbuckeye 3]

It's Tuesday. How are you wiffflenut? I see you have me on ignore.

 

the crapper busting fatty would never put anyone on ignore, he might miss some attention if he did.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

Fatt Ass may invoke..............................????

[BunnysBastatrds 2,412]

Lunch???