Is this your act with TG?
Posted on 06/19/2015 10:00:17 AM PDT by don-o
Is this your act with TG?
Name of who, the attorney?
F. Clinton Broden, but you should already know that since you commented on that thread.
As far as the name calling goes, I am getting quite used to it on these threads. I will continue to lick jack boots and you can keeps licking Bandido boots.
Is English your first language?
Of course I knew it. I want your sidekick to be clear with all that she considers F. Clinton Broden to be a "shyster." She (TG) was challenged repeatedly to clarify that it WAS Mr. Broden, she was referring to and she failed repeatedly to answer.
As far as the name calling goes, I am getting quite used to it on these threads. I will continue to lick jack boots and you can keeps licking Bandido boots.
I have used no terminology like that. I HAVE used "Liar" and "slanderer" when lies are told and slander against good FReepers and others is unleashed.
While my general policy is to ignore trollish behavior, when they continue unabated, they need to be called out.
You just called me a puppet, disproving what you said here and proving my point. Thanks for the help.
I was not clear who was on whose knee. Perhaps you take turns. And the actual term is "dummy."
Thanks again for proving my point. You say you aren’t a name caller, but it seems a majority of your posts involve name calling . Not a very good way of convincing people of the merits of your argument.
I did not say that. I call liars and slanders what their words merit them to be called.
...and when you are calling people dummies or ventriloquists.
And anybody that doesn’t agree with you is a troll.
No. Anybody that posts baseless accusations and ascribes nefarious motive to others and refuses to engage with what another actually SAYS is acting as a troll.
Can we agree that to repeatedly call those who continue to question the narrative, and who want to discuss the bad precedents being set here - to call those folks “bike gang supporters” is over the top?
Can we agree on that?
“No. Anybody that posts baseless accusations and ascribes nefarious motive to others and refuses to engage with what another actually SAYS is acting as a troll.”
That would be you!
“Can we agree that to repeatedly call those who continue to question the narrative, and who want to discuss the bad precedents being set here - to call those folks “bike gang supporters” is over the top?”
When one posts how these are nice family men just out for a meeting with other family men you can be considered to be a bike gang supporter ...
No. We can’t agree on that. You expect some kind of special treatment after spending the last couple weeks flaming on people and calling them names for disagreeing with you.
Says the slanderer of good FReepers, who refuses to name the lawyer she called a shyster. Back to Ignore you go.
“And the collusion has already extended to the judicial. At least one judge, at a bond reduction hearing, refused to hear an argument challenging probable cause.”
Of course. If you knew anything about law you would know that probable cause is not discussed at bond reduction hearings.
When one posts over 40 posts in two days....on FR, on one subject....you can be considered a troll.
“When one posts over 40 posts in two days....on FR, on one subject....you can be considered a troll.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:dono/index?tab=articles
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.