The fact that you could not admit that you were wrong about justice prosser. You could not just admit that you were wrong. You had to continually attack him and find excuses on why he was not charged. You just couldn't admit that you were wrong. Plain and simple. There was nothing to the charges from day 1. You still believe in your mind that he is evil and should have been charged with a crime; however you are probably the only one on the planet that actually believes this. You might earn a little more respect around here by just admitting when your wrong or when Obama or the democrats are wrong. It is kind of similar to Nancy Pelosi's arguement about how unemployment benefits create jobs.

LOL - wrong. Excuse me, but I posted right up front in that thread, acknowledging that the Prosser result wasn't what I hoped for.

Nice try. But not true.

LOL - yes, I do, and no, I'm not the only one: the internal ethics charges with the law board are still pending. And it's pretty obvious the guy was involved in a physical altercation with another judge. And with a cameraman. And has a documented history of outbursts on the court.

If you think I'll ever post that Prosser is a man completely innocent of workplace violence, I'll never do that, because it would be an outright lie disproven by the facts.

You might earn more respect around here by not completely ignoring such things.

Again stating that the outcome wasn't what you hoped for and admitting you were wrong are 2 very different things. You just can't do it. If you had your way you would give the guy life in prison yet not only is he not guilty, but he was never even charged.

You didn't read the entire thread, I must assume?

Go away until you at least have some of the intellectual honesty you want in others.

Wow. I post facts and you attack. I get it now. Carry on...

LOL - do you want me to post what I said from that thread, or you do want to slink away with a final name calling, hoping nobody will notice how factually false your attack is?

this would be #2

Seriously, what is wrong with people like you? You constantly try and weasel out and try and change the context or some other bs but seriously what is wrong with you?

Outside of radical political operatives with mental deficencies, who in the world takes the positions that you take EVERY time? It's crazy.

Not to mention you constantly do exactly what you incessently whine about, changing the subject. You can't stand it when I do nothing but poke holes in your arguments. Face it, Obama isn't a disaster, most people are aware of that but you can't even concede that point.

I suppose if it wasn't for your inane takes and laughable responses the political section would be alot duller. So go ahead and continue to conflate your inability to talk politics, other than quoting opinions you agree with from the WSJ, with your scant ability to insult people. It's the best you can do.

It's official..you jumped the shark ! :wf

One question for you: did you believe or do you still believe Justice David prosser not only should have been charged in his so called attack on justice bradley but that he is in fact guilty?

Yes or no. I don't want a long drawn out answer

Glad you made the list rules clear: It's okay if it's anti-Obama :tro:

I already asked, do you want me to post what I said from that thread, or you do want to slink away with a final name calling, hoping nobody will notice how factually false your attack is?

Seems you chose slinking away.

Then you come back changing the subject and trying to start a new argument :D. Geesh, how petty are you? Can't admit when you are wrong, huh?

I suggest you go read the very long thread on the subject that already exists. Where it has already been discussed in detail and answered. If you want to re-start discussion about Prosser, maybe you could use that very thread? And don't miss the parts where I talked about Prosser not being charged. Seems you missed that, the first five times.

I am not as smart as you. A simple yes or no would do. Can u do that?

This one is harder to quantify. Elements of #2 and #3 with some plagiarism.

Though the "Obama isn't a disaster" comment brings questions of lucidity into the equation

So if I point out that the Indianapolis Colts suck does that mean I am anti-Colts? Or just stating the obvious?

And I'm not as empty-headed and forgetful as you. The thread you started is convenient, go read it. And again, be sure to post the part where you were wrong :D:tro:

This is a long yes or no.

p.s.-I dont see any name calling in Wiphans question

Wiphan accused me of something that isn't true. Wiphan knows that. That's why he's changed the subject, and is trying to distract and start a new fight :D

Wiphan - the thread where this was discussed in detail is readily available. If you want to know what I think of Prosser not being charged, I suggest you go re-read the pages and pages of it where it's been previously discussed. Be sure you read the whole thing, not just the parts you want to :D

They are right Republicans and they are perfect. Haven't you read Dino's in depth analysis, Lord007 objective reasoning?

Thanks for the backup, but be careful, the shot's still flying. Don't get an accidental hit! ;)

I don't f*cking care..I am a lurker here now because there are few besides Joey (JoeyDB...Not Ateam..he ain't right..sic) who can speak his peace without resorting to trash. It's all the right knows

Selective insulting---they're both doorknobs.



Both parties suck, let's be Dave---I mean Frank.

This isn't a court of law. He asked you a yes or no question and you didn't respond yes or no or really anyway. I mean why won't you just say yes or no?

And I asked Wiphan to answer about his accusation against me about Prosser. I referred him back to the thread where it's discussed in depth. He's ignored that and changed the subject.

You sure jumped on that change-the-subject bandwagon fast, too :D What's the matter, don't want to read the old thread?

Guess that speaks for itself :D:tro:

There is very little in life that I wouldnt rather do than read that old thread. What difference does it make if he is according to you changing the subject? Is there some sort of procedures that have to be followed?

He asked you a direct question that was related to the topic you refer to. You refuse to answer. Just because this is the political section doesn't mean you have to deflect the questions like a politician does. Why wont you just say yes or no?

I asked him a direct question first. Wiphan refused to answer. Why? Then he changed the subject and conned you into jumping on that changed-subject bandwagon.

Nice to know you have "rules" about "why don't you just answer" that you apply differently, depending upon who is doing the asking :D

Poor you. Stomp your feet and throw a fit, but you'll just have to re-read the thread, like Wiphan, if you want to rehash what's already been discussed to death about the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

On the other hand, Wiphan accused me of not admitting I said Prosser would be charged, and he was wasn't. Not true. You both refuse to look again at the thread where I said that. But I guess that's why Wiphan is so desperate to change the subject and make the attack about me. To get the emphasis off that nonsense. You're a good sheeple for Wiphan :tro:

If you both turn and attack me loudly enough, perhaps we can forget that Wiphan makes accusations that can't stand up to scrutiny? LOL

Geesh, you righties are pathetically transparent.

Now, on the other hand, "Walkergate" seems to be becoming more interesting day by day.

My question was not in regards to democrats or republicans and it was a simple yes/no question. Riot simply can not answer and didn't answer the question in the previous thread. Why can't she answer the ? Yes or no that is it

Logic, as I have repeatedly stated in this section, serves no purpose here.

Yes or no?

Interesting I am called a righty by a so-called registered Republican. I am not registered a republican, nor will I ever be. I actually voted libertarian in the last few elections. Riot simply can not answer yes or no. She didn't answer the question in the prior thread either. She will kind of admit she is wrong and then deflect to 10 other points and explain how she was right. It is a simple question. Yes or no? Which question am I not answering? I can't find it in your ramblings and personal attacks, but again I am not as intelligent as you so I guess I am just too stupid to understand the question.

:baby:
:tro:


:{>:

Isn't this where I said, "Go ahead, please post where I "didn't answer the question" in that thread, and you slinked away whining and changing the subject the first time?

We'll give you another chance. Go ahead. Post that out of that thread. Let me get some popcorn ;) I always love it when you righties gang together screaming you've been mistreated.

This is Derby Trail politics. Stop trying to inject truth. That doesn't matter. What someone else makes up is all that matters here. Right? Stop trying to "explain" the nuances of your politics. Nobody cares, you're labeled for what people imagine.

Simple thing, Wiphan: the Prosser thread went on and on, you addressed it directly to me, and I answered that yes, Prosser wasn't charged when I said he would be several times. You can keep ignoring it, you can keep changing the question to try and re-litigate it without opening up that thread, but there it is.

In fact, you are SO insistent I did that, this is the third chance you have to simply post my answers from that thread, "proving" I never acknowledged Prosser wasn't charged as I predicted.

Go ahead.

Why aren't you jumping on the chance to prove I'm wrong? Why are you instead changing the subject?

Strange behaviour, for someone who has just spent a page screaming about something that happened in the past on a different thread.

Face it: your silly whining doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Now, want to talk about Walkergate? Do you think the Governor knows what happened, or not?

She treats every thread as a contest where there is a winner and a loser and of course she always thinks she wins. I think it is amusing that she labels anyone who disagrees with her takes as a radical right winger, racist, jackass, etc.

I am not sure why she can't back up her points, actually discuss the topic but I'm pretty sure it is because as she has shown quite often especially in the economic discussions she allows her bias (pro-Obama, anti-GOP) to overcome any understanding of the topic at hand.

There are lots of occasions where I dont agree with the GOP position. I don't particularly like any of the potential GOP Presidential candidates. I dont like the immigration policy of the GOP. I think they go too far at the current time in cutting Gov't spending, would rather they gained power and then worried about making it a focal point (I understand they are playing politics even though cutting the deficit is a good thing). I am not thrilled that religion is as prominent as it is though again most are just playing to their audience. I am not in favor with some of the social positions that the GOP takes. If gays want to get married then as American citizens we should let them. I believe that the entitlement programs have a place but need serious reform as so much of the money is just wasted by bureaucracy . The GOP ate its fair share of pork over the years which I never agreed with when it became excessive. Do my politics lean right? Sure but that doesn't mean I'm blinded by hatred of the left. Didn't Riot recently post somewhere that she would never vote for a GOP candidate again? I would find it hard to label myself a racist. I surely could be called a jackass but not for any of the reasons that would be given here.

:tro::D:tro::$:

You poor people, trying to "explain" your politics and thoughts and "what you believe".

What are you, sobbing "liberals"?

Like it matters here in Politics. Isn't it clear that only prejudice and assumption and labels and pedantic angry political ignorance matter here?

Geesh, you righties need to get with your own program. You dish it out, but you sure can't take it.

Seriously?

A person with your pubically stated views that remains a registered republican?

Us jackasses would call that hypocrisy to the nth degree

That wasn't the question. The question was do you believe that prosser not only should have been charged but in fact is guilty in the attack on Justice Bradley? Yes or no. simple as that. I am not asking you if I was right and you were wrong, we already know that answer. I am asking if you believe he should have been charged? and if you believe he was guilty? End of story

He should have killed the wench.


He should not have been charged.