What's truly pathetic is that you have absolutely nothing of substance to say on the topic, but instead are 100% focused (stalker) on me. I gave you a chance to respond to my critique of your study, but you punted. Now you come simpering back to the table trying to pretend that I'm avoiding your trenchant arguments. :2rofll:
Truly pathetic.
Yes the hackery is strong with you, eclipsed only by your rank
dishonesty. You have not responded to a single thing I or anyone else has posted that debunks you, particularly the post you begged us to answer for you, like oh say "a single example" of voter fraud. Probably you did that because not only was a single example given to you (by more than just me) but multiple ones were supplied. Makes it hard to keep acting like an idiot who has never heard of voter fraud if you have to acknowledge it does exist, much less in direct reply to a challenge from you to supply evidence of it. Your critique of one of the studies I went back and found for you from one of the other threads, ya know that you claimed you had never been shown? First off you could not even follow the basic English to grasp that I never said I had posted that study, but that it had been posted for you in other threads. Well not only was it not the first time you had been shown that study, but just like last time it was shown to you your so called "critique" was downright
stupid. You seem to think that just because you can post idiotic replies that really are just you doing your nananananabobo shtick, this makes said reply brilliant, relevant and the work of someone not willing to act like a child. Your critique was dishonest on every level, trying to pretend that the only thing contained in it, or as you feebly tried to say, the "meat of it" was a 1984 NY grand jury case. Which is hardly the case, and of course I guess only you think that if you "dismiss" a well sourced study that has dozens of citations with a
blog you have refuted a study! Yeah, it is that asinine, which is how I treated it. What kind of moron looks back upon himself posting a link to a blog and calls it
his "critique" of a study? I mean you just never see posters at forums like this pointing to a blog, cribbing from it and claiming the thoughts and words of the author of
that linked blog complaining about a single citation in a study, is not only his
own critique of the study, but refutation of the study itself. No doubt you think posting blogs is an example of you being a "stellar debater"! Of course that is just you
pretending. Again.
Now I'm stalking you huh? Like I said, never go
full retard, no matter how easy and appealing to you the idea is. You were saying something about something "pathetic" were you, stellar debater? Cough cough, Watergate! Cough cough, Iran Contra! You know what will really help you come across as a "stellar debater"? Playing tag team wrestling buddy with Karl. Talk about going full retard.