Official War Room Awards 2018

Cubo de Sangre said:
You point them out quite nicely with your refusal to back up your absurd claims with any quotes of miine. The word for that is transparent.
Click to expand...

That's not happening, though. I'm quoting your posts and responding to them. While you keep chopping mine up and pretending not to have read them, which if you're telling the truth (lol) means that you can't know what I did or didn't back up.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Just remember, without being tucked under Jack's wing, this dude's a laughingstock at this point. Just dumb aggressiveness.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha. This is hilarious considering you just ran from my post embarrassing you about your ignorance about corporate fiduciary law and campaign spending, in equating it to a fucking lemonade stand ("durr hurr what if me and my friend Bobby make two dollars?"). And that's in addition to you running from every post of mine for the past week after humiliating yourself by being such a lonely weirdo that was obsessed with a silly internet election that you had to conscript Honey Boo Boo's mom to come onto the forum and feign indignation and lie about strangers she had no idea about.

You've now receded into openly fleeing substantive discussion and then responding to it with un-tagged insults to other posters because you're a coward who will seek the safe harbor of anyone who will have you, be it a partisan on a political forum or a woman with the body and wit of the late Don Vito.

So, here's my earlier post. Feel free to show us all how you are smarter than....well, anyone.
Trotsky said:
Yeah, you don't know what corporate spending entails for publicly traded corporations. It is constrained by corporate fiduciary law such that it cannot be in furtherance of any objective but pursuing profit. Likewise, investors in corporations enjoy limited liability, which means that they cannot be held financially liable beyond their investment. So, pursuant to the fiduciary law, the corporation's spending is not political speech except to the extent that the speech itself serves the interests of the corporation's stock price or market share. To allow unfettered corporate political spending would be to allow penetration of apolitical and non-democratic influence into a democratic polity. And because of laws on limited liability (for shareholders and directors) and the state-level race to the bottom on director liability, there is basically no way to democratize that spending or hold it accountable for its policies when you can't get to the money, whether to seek remedies for aggrieved citizens or for aggrieved shareholders.

All of these things (fiduciary law, limited liability, corporate veils) are put in place to politically quarantine publicly traded countries and maximize corporations' ability to pursue profits without having to having to hedge against losses and worry about internal and external political issues. To then allow them to parlay those profits back into the government that is protecting them to further weaponize it in their favor amounts to more than just having cake and eating it too: it's systemically undemocratic.
Click to expand...
​


Now that's aggression. But rest assured that I could be in the final stage of a rabies infection and still be a great deal smarter than you are, you hapless loser. Try not to sprain a finger as you write me your next rage-induced PM.

Also, as far as laughing stocks go, I think you can look throughout this thread and see which one of us is getting best poster mentions from some of the brightest posters here and which one of us is getting.....well, nothing, except post likes from two avid team players, plus some members of the short bus that you now drive.
 
@Limbo Pete - Official Noms
  • Best All Around Poster- giving it to @panamaican this year. I was worried last year when he was modded we would see less content/posting from him but he still deliveries insightful posts constantly.
  • Best TS- @Arkain2K There were some good reads this year. He found some unique topics to focus on. Very helpful.
  • Best Thread- The PA special election thread earlier this year that Lamb won. That was a really great night to kick back with some regulars here and watch a crazy tight race play out. It was by far my favorite night this year on the site.
  • Drunkest poster- @RockstarChris
  • Worst user name- I don't like doing the "Worst" ones but since it's already been fixed, @senri had a shitty name change for a bit that was completely against the Nexus and all it's teachings. Also, although I enjoy his posts, @Phr3121 will need to explain his name to me cause if nothing is behind it, I will continue to encourage you to find something better. Abbreviations/initials/numbers etc just don't look good to me.
  • Best user name- I have to give @jei props for dropping the cex. I like @Sano 's that I just noticed this year. Anything short and like a nickname appeals to me.
  • Rookie of the Year- I refuse to give it to @NoDak cause I did it last time (he's mentioned the switch). Actually, I have a list of 13 new posters this year and I may actually have to still give it to @NoDak
  • Best Feud- @Jack V Savage v. @waiguoren - The thing lasted all year and went all over the place along with some anticipation for an eventual Superbet between the two undefeated top betters. Of course right when I had lost hope, it finally happened during the midterms and made that night even more eventful that it would've been.
  • Runner Up Best Feud- @Jack V Savage v. @Cubo de Sangre - This got steam later in the year and made me almost lose sight of the endurance of the Wai-Jack feud. I think to be able to discuss the Warren ancestry topic to that length of time must be torture but these two stuck to it.
  • Best Quote- @tonni stole my soul in my own damn thread making me have the horrid realization that my forum persona is Mrs. Garret from the facts of life

    tonni said:
    Hi everyone my name is Lead I made a drunk thread to unite the WR and make them more sympathetic towards each other. I love my little babies so much it brings me tears in my eyes when people from opposite sides have a good time.

    I am a like a very large hen and posters are my sweet brittle chicks.
    Click to expand...
    I still wake up in the middle of night in a deep sweat from that one. Or have to pause at my desk at work and sigh a bit to myself. Or walk out of my apartment and get in my car to let out a unfulfilling but necessary scream.
  • Best WR Awards Host- @Limbo Pete
 
Limbo Pete said:
I think saying this



Was bad, and definitely exacerbated by this lol



May as well just ship em to Guantanamo and drop the pretense ayyyyyyyyy lmao
Click to expand...

Why. Manafort was pretty much tried in that way? The incommunicado was a bit much

You do not believe anything is wrong with this investigation. That's ok. It's a just position

But some people think there is a soft coup being attempted on a sitting president. And honestly, I don't think that's such a crazy position
 
Trotsky said:
Hahahahaha. This is hilarious considering you just ran from my post embarrassing you about your ignorance about corporate fiduciary law and campaign spending, in equating it to a fucking lemonade stand ("durr hurr what if me and my friend Bobby make two dollars?"). And that's in addition to you running from every post of mine for the past week after humiliating yourself by being such a lonely weirdo that was obsessed with a silly internet election that you had to conscript Honey Boo Boo's mom to come onto the forum and feign indignation and lie about strangers she had no idea about.
Click to expand...

Lash out. I hope you get over it and accept my offer of reconciliation.
 
SBJJ said:
Why. Manafort was pretty much tried in that way? The incommunicado was a bit much

You do not believe anything is wrong with this investigation. That's ok. It's a just position

But some people think there is a soft coup being attempted on a sitting president. And honestly, I don't think that's such a crazy position
Click to expand...
When did Manafort get held without representation or tried over and over by a UT court lol
"Soft coup" lmao you sound like TCK talking like that
Never go full TCK
 
Lead said:
Runner Up Best Feud- @Jack V Savage v. @Cubo de Sangre - This got steam later in the year and made me almost lose sight of the endurance of the Wai-Jack feud. I think to be able to discuss the Warren ancestry topic to that length of time must be torture but these two stuck to it.
Click to expand...

Endurance? It was a joy for me watching him flail and embarrass himself. Backing down at every turn. My nickname for him in my head is Dick Tucker.
 
Trotsky said:
Your offers of reconciliation are constantly followed by un-tagged, un-quoted pot shots like that one, you cowardly creep.
Click to expand...

You ignored it and started in. Since then I don't owe you anything. You refused. Now we all know where everyone stands. If you wanna separate out the petty insults I'm here. You wanna be a dick then reap what you sew.
 
dontsnitch said:
Dude, you're the president now, grab some pussies already, what's this reconciliation talk? Think Jim Duggan.
Click to expand...

My work has just begun and forgiveness is in my heart. Dudes wanna spit in my face though and I don't pretend to be Jesus.
 
Limbo Pete said:
I think saying this

"Hold them all incommunicado, without bail, indefinitely, on national security grounds, until the trial"​
Click to expand...

Might wanna read it again, Johnny Cochran. That's all lawful... except perhaps the "indefinitely" part ;) (still felt good to write it).
Even then, when national security interests are in play, the law tolerates rather long pre-trial detentions. The Court can gag the defendant and hold him in isolation for years, as long as he has access to a lawyer. Anyway, what are you mad about? They literally just did the same thing to Maria Butina. I don't see you White Knighting for her.

Was bad, and definitely exacerbated by this lol

"Try them as many times as needed to secure convictions."​

Was bad, and definitely exacerbated by this lol
Click to expand...

Again, prepare yourself to be surprised. If the jury hangs, the state can retry the defendant as many times as necessary to secure a conviction—as long as the defendant is not acquitted. In other words, 12 jurors need to find him not guilty for Double Jeopardy to bar retrial. That will not happen in a case like this unless you try it in Washington D.C. That's why you file it in a place like Utah (I'd say Idaho, IMO it should be kept out of the 9th Circuit).

May as well just ship em to Guantanamo and drop the pretense ayyyyyyyyy lmao
Click to expand...

Well it would be quite cathartic to designate him an enemy combatant and give him the Al Qaeda treatment (that's what you're suggesting), but I would reserve use of that label for true international terrorists. In reality, everything I have suggested is perfectly lawful, and in fact very common. Nothing I have suggested is outrageous. If you want to be outraged, be outraged at the justice system.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
You ignored it and started in. Since then I don't owe you anything. You refused. Now we all know where everyone stands. If you wanna separate out the petty insults I'm here. You wanna be a dick then reap what you sew.
Click to expand...

It's "reap what you sow," Einstein. It's farming, not knitting one of your friendship quilts to bribe strangers into being your friend. And my "starting in" was presenting facts that explained why your post and position were wrong. I didn't even pair it with an insult, which would have been completely fair game, anyways. I've done the same to plenty of actual good posters on here too when they get something wrong. The only difference is that those posters either disagree and challenge my points or they concede and say they were mistaken. They don't cry into a pillow and then call me stupid to another poster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,856
Messages
58,322,125
Members
176,000
Latest member
Markooz86

Share this page

Back
Top