Opening the straight not hard at all

And you would obtain this search warrant on what basis?
If Pelosi is in the thick of politics, and she and husband are hundreds upon hundreds percent ahead of hedge funds, you're wondering on what basis?

Please lay out your defence on why you're not the world's thickest ***t.

You are either having a laugh on purpose, or you are so inbred it's wrecked your braincells. Are you the guy that played the banjo in Deliverance?
 
Pelosi is in the thick of politics, and she and husband are hundreds upon hundreds percent ahead of hedge funds, you're wondering on what basis?
Correct, since none of that indicates a crime. Lots of people beat all the hedge funds. That isn't how warrants work.

Now, if you had something like a record of 3700 trades in a month, showing structuring, with some made just minutes before official announcements, showing insider info... then you might have something.

Right?
 
Correct, since none of that indicates a crime. Lots of people beat all the hedge funds. That isn't how warrants work.

Now, if you had something like a record of 3700 trades in a month, showing structuring, with some made just minutes before official announcements, showing insider info... then you might have something.

Right?
Er, no. Tell me, are you utter thick or agenda based? Just trying to work out your source of retardism.

If in front of you, there's a puppy sitting beside a big pile of poo, your brain take you to Australia because you think a Duck Billed Platypus did it.

This is why Lefties are not taken seriously.
 
72 days later two things are still true about this hilarious opening post:

1. The strait is still closed
2. You will make every excuse in the book to tell us why it’s not your blob’s fault when 72 days ago you said “This is not at all hard” (something I’m sure you’ve heard quite a bit).
There are times when crow pie becomes a feast
 
Which part? Try using your big boy words.

Tantrums wont help you, son.

BTW, Paul Pelosi did not outperform all hedge funds. That's a lie.

Hundreds and hundreds? Also a lie.

Got anything but a lie and a fantasy?

Doubt it.

Don't you wish you had some evidence like this? I'm sure you do, since your only attempt at a factual claim was a lie.


"Now, if you had something like a record of 3700 trades in a month, showing structuring, with some made just minutes before official announcements, showing insider info... then you might have something."

How about growing a pair and commenting on that?
 
Last edited:
Which part? Try using your big boy words.

Tantrums wont help you, son.

BTW, Paul Pelosi did not outperform all hedge funds. That's a lie.

Hundreds and hundreds? Also a lie.

Got anything but a lie and a fantasy?

Doubt it.

Don't you wish you had some evidence like this? I'm sure you do, since your only attempt at a factual claim was a lie.


"Now, if you had something like a record of 3700 trades in a month, showing structuring, with some made just minutes before official announcements, showing insider info... then you might have something."

How about growing a pair and commenting on that?
Can't carry the debate on unless you answer my questions first. So be a big boy and try again. If you get stuck, ask your gran or carer.
 
Can't carry the debate on unless you answer my questions first. So be a big boy and try again. If you get stuck, ask your gran or carer.
No, first you will explain what was wrong with what I said, which came first.

Which you cannot and will not do, which is why you instead had a baby tantrum in the first place.
 
No, first you will explain what was wrong with what I said, which came first.

Which you cannot and will not do, which is why you instead had a baby tantrum in the first place.
No, I asked a question, so either answer it, then ask a question, or gfy. Very simple.
 
No, I asked a question, so either answer it, then ask a question, or gfy. Very simple.
Yes, after your dodge of my point. Dont be a sissy.

Back up your little shart.

But you won't. Because your little shart was just a reflexive convulsion in lieu of any cogent thought or argument .

Furthermore, if you had any big boy points to make, they wouldn't rely on what I think. So take your quiz and stick up your ass, until you respond to my point.

Lets review:

You have not a shred of evidence.

Here is what some looks like:

"Now, if you had something like a record of 3700 trades in a month, showing structuring, with some made just minutes before official announcements, showing insider info... then you might have something."

Evidence, right?

Then I will maybe answer your sealion question.
 
Yes, after your dodge of my point. Dont be a sissy.

Back up your little shart.

But you won't. Because your little shart was just a reflexive convulsion in lieu of any cogent thought or argument .

Furthermore, if you had any big boy points to make, they wouldn't rely on what I think. So take your quiz and stick up your ass, until you respond to my point.

Lets review:

You have not a shred of evidence.

Here is what some looks like:

"Now, if you had something like a record of 3700 trades in a month, showing structuring, with some made just minutes before official announcements, showing insider info... then you might have something."

Evidence, right?

Then I will maybe answer your sealion question.
Fantastic, still no answer, still not getting anywhere.

Please waffle on again, it's the only thing you're good at.
 
Your point will never be answered until you back track and answer my question. It's how debating works
That isnt how debating works. You don't answer your debate opponent's questions and help them make their points. Get that bullshit out of here.

You make your own big boy points all by your big boy self, and I won't be helping you. That's how debating works.

You have no evidence. What you described is not evidence. I addressed that directly.

I described some evidence. You won"t admit it is evidence, and we both know why.

So you are going to sit there and throw a tantrum instead.

Expected.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom