- Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:51 pm
#83374
Loser Boy AssClown Insipid is a loser boy precisely because I DID refute his OP entirely by pointing out that Warren didn't slander anyone as he claimed.
And as proof that his OP statement was idiotic, I offered the U.S. Senate itself that didn't reprimand four other Senators for saying exactly the same thing Warren said. If it was slander, they would have been stopped by Mitchell and the rest and told to sit down. They weren't.
And if that weren't enough, what Loser Boy also doesn't understand is that statements aren't slander if they're true.
But unfortunately for Loser Boy, slander is not the issue here, so his OP is completely wrong in its premise.
Slander isn't the issue that Rule XIX addresses. Read it and weep, Loser Boy.
Loser Boy Insipid doesn't understand the first thing about his own topic.
So Loser Boy AssClown Insipid has had his nose rubbed in his own waste again. He begs for it and I always oblige him.
Now let's watch my bitch Insipid obediently dance for us again instead of posting something related to the topic before us. :lol: :lol: :lol:
And as proof that his OP statement was idiotic, I offered the U.S. Senate itself that didn't reprimand four other Senators for saying exactly the same thing Warren said. If it was slander, they would have been stopped by Mitchell and the rest and told to sit down. They weren't.
And if that weren't enough, what Loser Boy also doesn't understand is that statements aren't slander if they're true.
But unfortunately for Loser Boy, slander is not the issue here, so his OP is completely wrong in its premise.
Slander isn't the issue that Rule XIX addresses. Read it and weep, Loser Boy.
Loser Boy Insipid doesn't understand the first thing about his own topic.
So Loser Boy AssClown Insipid has had his nose rubbed in his own waste again. He begs for it and I always oblige him.
Now let's watch my bitch Insipid obediently dance for us again instead of posting something related to the topic before us. :lol: :lol: :lol:
