Cheat Engine Forum Index Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


More proof Donald Trump is a pathological liar
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
konr
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Time to ignore this guy forever lmao
_________________
The notion that man has a body distinct from his soul is to be expunged; this I shall do by ... melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Antagonist
Advanced Cheater
Reputation: 29

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 51
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokefag wrote:
(dib1500) wrote:
Nirojan wrote:

please, stay out of canda
based shkreli


Lmao sounds like even Kyles little celebrity crush doesn't like Sanders


This is why Sanders doesn't have protestors in his rallies. Nobody shows up!


_________________




tough guy talix wrote:
i've had it with your shit. fuck outta here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Antagonist wrote:
cokefag wrote:
(dib1500) wrote:
Nirojan wrote:

please, stay out of canda
based shkreli


Lmao sounds like even Kyles little celebrity crush doesn't like Sanders


This is why Sanders doesn't have protestors in his rallies. Nobody shows up!

[ig]https://i.imgur.com/AQ1OfIu.jpg[/ig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-shatters-2016-turnout-record-28000-crowd

u wanna get the cock out of ur mouth

_________________
Imam ash-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Antagonist
Advanced Cheater
Reputation: 29

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 51
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:42 pm    Post subject: This post has 1 review(s) Reply with quote

greatsage wrote:
Antagonist wrote:
cokefag wrote:
(dib1500) wrote:
Nirojan wrote:

please, stay out of canda
based shkreli


Lmao sounds like even Kyles little celebrity crush doesn't like Sanders


This is why Sanders doesn't have protestors in his rallies. Nobody shows up!

[ig]https://i.imgur.com/AQ1OfIu.jpg[/ig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-shatters-2016-turnout-record-28000-crowd

u wanna get the cock out of ur mouth


Huh
http://nypost.com/2015/08/22/trump-gets-biggest-crowd-of-any-2016-candidate-so-far/

_________________




tough guy talix wrote:
i've had it with your shit. fuck outta here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Channel GannoK
pffrt
Reputation: 128

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 602

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Antagonist, rather than trying to measure how big Trump's dick is, I know that's what you love to do all hours of the day, why don't you listen to some facts instead of disregarding it. If you don't watch this, you truly are ignorant and are now arguing from a position of ignorance.

I'll even provide a transcript if you're too incompetent to understand spoken logic


Link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Antagonist
Advanced Cheater
Reputation: 29

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 51
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kyle is tryna stump the Trump but it is ineffective.


_________________




tough guy talix wrote:
i've had it with your shit. fuck outta here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
konr
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The fact that someone is winning does not mean that they are morally sound, a better candidate or that your arguments for that person are any more sound or that the opposition is any less sound.

I don't know why I've had to say this as many times as I have.

_________________
The notion that man has a body distinct from his soul is to be expunged; this I shall do by ... melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Antagonist
Advanced Cheater
Reputation: 29

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 51
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konr wrote:
The fact that someone is winning does not mean that they are morally sound, a better candidate or that your arguments for that person are any more sound or that the opposition is any less sound.

I don't know why I've had to say this as many times as I have.


Moral is subjective and he follows the laws. As far as business ethics goes. Trump is fine.

The problem is many liberals are sensitive to Trump's language. He's a straight shooter. And they don't like that. Good thing majority of Americans don't really care for such things. They care about competency. They don't want a Mr. Nice guy or a yes man in office. Americans want a president that can kick ass and win

Trump's positions are 100% correct and makes complete sense despite his supposed personality.

Trump's a person of pragmatism, Sanders isnt. People respect pragmatic people not people who will promise them things.

The funny thing is, if Kyle knew who funded Moveon.org he wouldnt support such a group because the person that funds it is 180 on Kyle's moral compass.

He's the synonym of a crooked corrupt establishment elite who's a billionaire and cheated many people.


EDIT: ON TOP OF THAT.

NC top lawyer just said that there is no evidence of Trump inciting violence.

Quote:
“It doesn’t appear that we have sufficient evidence to warrant charging him at this time,” said Ronnie Mitchell, the lead attorney for the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office, according to The Washington Post.


Quote:

“We have not been able to unearth evidence that [any instances] were incited or motivated by Mr. Trump,” Mitchell added of nearly 100 incidents getting probed by the sheriff’s office, including individual protests.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272998-authorities-trump-unlikely-facing-charges-for-inciting-a


So who is correct, top NC lawyer or Kyle who is a nobody?

_________________




tough guy talix wrote:
i've had it with your shit. fuck outta here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
konr
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just because someone holds the title of being a top lawyer, that does not make me completely ignore what I've seen. It is UNDENIABLE to me that he incited and encouraged the violence. It isn't even an argument, it is clear as day in video footage on more than one occasion. If you're going to argue that I should ignore what I've seen because someone who works in the industry says legally he didn't or some shit, I don't fucking care what he did legally because I watched him do it full stop. It does not matter to me whether he can be prosecuted for it, he definitely did incite it.
_________________
The notion that man has a body distinct from his soul is to be expunged; this I shall do by ... melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Antagonist
Advanced Cheater
Reputation: 29

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 51
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

konr wrote:
Just because someone holds the title of being a top lawyer, that does not make me completely ignore what I've seen. It is UNDENIABLE to me that he incited and encouraged the violence. It isn't even an argument, it is clear as day in video footage on more than one occasion. If you're going to argue that I should ignore what I've seen because someone who works in the industry says legally he didn't or some shit, I don't fucking care what he did legally because I watched him do it full stop. It does not matter to me whether he can be prosecuted for it, he definitely did incite it.


With all due respect to you Konr, that was a pretty naive statement. We can agree to disagree.

_________________




tough guy talix wrote:
i've had it with your shit. fuck outta here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Normie4RealLifeJob
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 22

Joined: 09 Feb 2013
Posts: 8
Location: Location Location Location

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konr rhymes with boner. hahahah


HAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHHEHHAHAHEHAEHAHAHAHEUGUHGHGHGUHGGHGHUGHGHGUGHGU[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
konr
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Antagonist wrote:
konr wrote:
Just because someone holds the title of being a top lawyer, that does not make me completely ignore what I've seen. It is UNDENIABLE to me that he incited and encouraged the violence. It isn't even an argument, it is clear as day in video footage on more than one occasion. If you're going to argue that I should ignore what I've seen because someone who works in the industry says legally he didn't or some shit, I don't fucking care what he did legally because I watched him do it full stop. It does not matter to me whether he can be prosecuted for it, he definitely did incite it.


With all due respect to you Konr, that was a pretty naive statement. We can agree to disagree.
What I've been saying is that whatever you consider the words he said to be, whether you think it breaks an law at all I don't understand how you could tell me after hearing what he had to say that what he did wasn't immoral. He incited violence because he was complaining to a huge group of people about how these people would have been beaten up, taken out on stretchers, that it was the good old days when that were the case. If you say something like that to a massive group of your supporters, and then even say that if they hurt people they don't have to worry about legal shit because you'll pay the fees for them then you are 100% inciting and condoning violence towards these people.

There is absolutely no argument against this and I don't think even you could deny it. Even if you agree with him or think that it is less harmful than I may perhaps think for example it is clear as day dude.

_________________
The notion that man has a body distinct from his soul is to be expunged; this I shall do by ... melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Normie4RealLifeJob
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 22

Joined: 09 Feb 2013
Posts: 8
Location: Location Location Location

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a story about how your humble narrator attempted to build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. It is also the story of what happened as a result. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming book on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, some people don't seem to mind that Antagonist likes to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships. What an indelicate, salacious world we live in!

Think about that for a moment. Antagonist's expositions were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the “innocents”. Rather, Antagonist's values are neo-depraved by any measure. Given that they're intended to nourish brutal, mutinous ideologies, they come close to being a crime. Antagonist says he's not vindictive, but he's really dour and that's essentially the same thing. I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to pursue virtue and knowledge. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Antagonist has somehow managed to get the media to pay rapt attention to his yawping propositions. I don't know what sort of Jedi mind control he's been using to pull that off, but I do know that the key to summoning up the courage to speak out against the worst types of materialistic, rebarbative ultracrepidarians I've ever seen lies in uniting civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience.

Given that the careless system Antagonist has created is impregnable to reform, it appears that our available options are currently somewhat limited. One possibility is to step back and consider the problem of his asseverations in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. Another possibility is to pass out flyers in public places that illustrate how gutless, malevolent pronks are often found at Antagonist's elbow. This suggests to me that all of the claims I've read regarding the benefits of Antagonist's initiatives have been utterly premature. That is, they always seem to be based on an inadequate exploration of these initiatives, their history, and their possible meanings. I, not being one of the many brain-damaged killjoys of this world, assert it is therefore high time we throw off Antagonist's yoke of credentialism. Let me start the ball rolling with the observation that Antagonist has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches Antagonist's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of Pyrrhonism and how trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. As you listen to Antagonist's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that he likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what Antagonist is pushing is both insensitive and cankered.

Antagonist's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings) and therefore—not surprisingly—he always arrives at that very conclusion. I don't mean to sound like a crapehanger, but I am truly concerned that Antagonist will practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of combative death cult sooner than you think. Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on his disagreeable fibs? I think we do.

If you've ever read a Web site's terms of use then many characteristics of Antagonist's zingers will sound like the “what you're not allowed to post” section. They're unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, and otherwise objectionable. Or, to restate that concept without all the legal jargon, Antagonist is a man utterly without honor, without principles, without a shred of genuine patriotism. That's why I say that he occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to poke someone's eyes out. You probably know exactly what I mean. Hence and therefore, what really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him foster debauchery or he'll break us up into a set of quarreling, wrangling, squabbling factions.

I, for one, have no doubt that Antagonist will cause me to abandon all hope. He has done that before to many others who have dared to disagree with him, and no doubt he will do it again, and again, and again. I allege that my only ability to thwart this clueless effort is to alert the public that Antagonist thinks that his faith in savagism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. My general thesis is that if he successfully prevents us from issuing a call to conscience and reason, we will rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. We will promote the free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints. We will ensure that everyone knows that I know through painful experience that Antagonist's coalition of pernicious poseurs and intolerant agitators is filled with weak-willed, manipulable rampallions who believe Antagonist's story that he's above everyone else. The more I reflect on such things, the more deeply I believe that Antagonist's gibes raise a number of brow-furrowing questions. I'm referring to questions such as, “What exactly is the principle that rationalizes Antagonist's irascible, untoward theories?” It's questions like that that indeed get people thinking about how Antagonist's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only obstreperous answers, deranged resolutions to conflicts. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: I would obviously like to believe that Antagonist acts with our interests in mind. I really would. But Antagonist sure makes it difficult to believe such things. For instance, he wants to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants.

Antagonist shouldn't reduce religion to a consumer item in a spiritual supermarket. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his sophistries are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. If treasonous survivalists really believed in equality, they wouldn't misdirect, discredit, disrupt, and otherwise neutralize his opponents. Now I could go off on that point alone, but every one of us has a role in saving this country from his alabandical guild. We all know that he has put our country in trouble. We may disagree on what to do about it, but we all know that our country is in trouble. May I suggest, therefore, that we ratchet up our level of understanding? Doing so may help even termagant, prodigal menaces see that we all know, in the world that surrounds us, that there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers and haters and hypocritical, linguacious knuckle-draggers who scheme to persuade many of Antagonist's castigators to enter into a one-way “dialogue” with Antagonist. What is often easy to forget, however, is that Antagonist is absolutely determined to believe that sin is good for the soul, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way.

Antagonist's ramblings serve only to make people increasingly doolally. At some point, we'll reach a “doolally event horizon” where everything in the universe will be doolally. At that point, it will no longer matter that Antagonist wants us to believe that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of “insiders”. This of course is nonsense without any empirical validity, but Antagonist so vehemently insists that his rejoinders will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society that this has come to be accepted wisdom, at least by unforgiving reavers. Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, if I am correctly informed, his latest stratagems are particularly deplorable, even by Antagonist's deplorable standards. In any case, he was a clumsy desperado when I first encountered him. He's a clumsy desperado now. And there is no more reason for believing that he will ever cease to be a clumsy desperado than there is for supposing that once Antagonist has approved of something it can't possibly be temerarious.

Antagonist's quarrelsome whinges are barren of worth and bereft of purpose. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Antagonist will retaliate by doing away with intellectual honesty. What he is doing is akin to painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. I'm not saying that facetiously; as people who know me unequivocally realize, I always mean what I say and say what I mean. They also realize that Antagonist piously intones, in the hushed tones usually reserved for sacred words spoken in church, that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. No, scratch that. Let me instead make the much stronger claim that Antagonist must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Antagonist accuses me of admitting that neocolonialism is a wonderful thing. What I actually said is that Antagonist's remarks are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're absolutely supercilious, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, Antagonist's detachment from, or denial of, the truth is not just a political tactic or say-anything-to-please character flaw. It reveals an elemental attitude that he shares with the most scummy rascals I've ever seen: confusing, befuddling, and neutralizing public opposition.

Plan to join Antagonist's camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door. Antagonist is typical of rotten Fagins in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his holier-than-thou attitudes. Having reached this letter's desition, I just want to leave you with the thought that Antagonist's voluble, blowsy form of isolationism has been spreading across the country like plague through a circa-1348 European town.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Antagonist
Advanced Cheater
Reputation: 29

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 51
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

konr wrote:
Antagonist wrote:
konr wrote:
Just because someone holds the title of being a top lawyer, that does not make me completely ignore what I've seen. It is UNDENIABLE to me that he incited and encouraged the violence. It isn't even an argument, it is clear as day in video footage on more than one occasion. If you're going to argue that I should ignore what I've seen because someone who works in the industry says legally he didn't or some shit, I don't fucking care what he did legally because I watched him do it full stop. It does not matter to me whether he can be prosecuted for it, he definitely did incite it.


With all due respect to you Konr, that was a pretty naive statement. We can agree to disagree.
What I've been saying is that whatever you consider the words he said to be, whether you think it breaks an law at all I don't understand how you could tell me after hearing what he had to say that what he did wasn't immoral. He incited violence because he was complaining to a huge group of people about how these people would have been beaten up, taken out on stretchers, that it was the good old days when that were the case. If you say something like that to a massive group of your supporters, and then even say that if they hurt people they don't have to worry about legal shit because you'll pay the fees for them then you are 100% inciting and condoning violence towards these people.

There is absolutely no argument against this and I don't think even you could deny it. Even if you agree with him or think that it is less harmful than I may perhaps think for example it is clear as day dude.


Argument #1: When Trump makes speeches and he does this on average of 2x a day with about 12k crowds every time. Every 2 rallies he has 1 rally thats with 25k people. He talks to the people, he doesn't talk at people. He talks to you like you're his drinking buddy. So if you watch his speeches. He adds a lot humor to it. He talks shit, he compliments people, he makes fun of people. Kinda pretty much like how you would talk to a friend. So a lot of sarcasm is passed around.

Argument #2: NC top lawyer is a professional. Takes roughly 6-8 years to become a lawyer. You gotta take one of the hardest exams available (the bar). I'm pretty sure this lawyer is good at what he does if he is the top, don't you think? Unless you're also a top lawyer then thats a different story. So to take his word over yours is pretty easy, no offense. Also he included in his report that he has looked over 100 supposed incidents. Thats a pretty good sample size no?

Argument #3: If you watch his speeches instead of cut out segments. He said only hurt them back if they act out. There has only been 1 person in his many rallies (he has spoken to conservative number of 5 million so far if you add up all his rallies) that has punched a protester for no particular reason and Trump is actually looking into that.

Argument #4: If he incites violence, why hasn't there been Trump supporters aggressively protesting in Sander's rally? Or any rally?

Argument #5: If he was inciting violence, how come it was Sanders people in Chicago that were beating the shit out of people?

Argument #6: If Trump incites violence, why do I see hundreds of tweet from Sanders people saying they want to assassinate Donald Trump?

Argument #7: If Trump incites violence, why are Sanders agressively wants to silence Trump and his supporters? (attached)



gokd2dv.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  371.87 KB
 Viewed:  5249 Time(s)

gokd2dv.jpg



_________________




tough guy talix wrote:
i've had it with your shit. fuck outta here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Normie4RealLifeJob
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 22

Joined: 09 Feb 2013
Posts: 8
Location: Location Location Location

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know surprisingly little about Trump incites violence. I know nothing about its background or origin. I do not know when Trump incites violence was created or what it has done besides hornswoggle people into voting against their own self interests. Nevertheless, I can tell you all that you need to know about it. Permit me this forum to rant. Trump incites violence contends that education should teach the precepts of Tartuffism and the duties of man towards self-aggrandizing pseudoscientists. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates.

In theory, Trump incites violence's eulogists avouch that the masses are muzzy-headed and unfit for citizenship. But in reality, the very genesis of Trump incites violence's garrulous communications is in Pyrrhonism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that it will eventually itself be destroyed by Pyrrhonism. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must interfere with my efforts to oppose Trump incites violence and all it stands for. Trump incites violence does that even when its liberties aren't being threatened.

If Trump incites violence had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages “before technocracy” it wouldn't be so keen to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that it may be generating. Maybe it'd even begin to realize that it justifies its hectoring surmises with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don't accept Trump incites violence's claim that its ruderies are Right with a capital R then it will lionize illiberal mumpsimuses. My friends, I must say to you that I myself want nothing more—or less—than to adduce abundant evidence that two-faced analphabetics have exerted care always to use high-sounding words like “pericardiomediastinitis” to hide Trump incites violence's plans to glorify apolaustic adulterers (especially the callous type). To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise. Everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that we desperately need to stop Trump incites violence's encroachments on our heritage. It's not enough merely to keep our heads down and pray that Trump incites violence doesn't snooker people of every stripe into believing that lying is morally justifiable as long as it's referred to as “strategic deception”. As I like to say, if you set the bar low, you jump low. Trump incites violence habitually reads negative meanings into innocuous remarks. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 3 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

CE Wiki   IRC (#CEF)   Twitter
Third party websites