The tory bullcr@p thread

[Paddo Colt 61]

LOL. I actually feel a bit sorry for you.

Yeah, a poor innocent deplorable who thinks it's all about him. Never argue with a mug, where would one begin anyway? Sky TV, WTF??

Can't you just imagine the Carlo household - Xmas lights festooning the front yard with one of those big rubber Santas. An deteriorating Vote No sign on the fence. Tradie ute out front covered with stickers - Vote No to Gay Whales, Fcuk the ABC, Easts to Win, They Fought for Our Freedom - Lest We Forget, Parra & Son Honest Prices. Modest Call Out Charge.

[Carlos Parra]

Nicely put Carlos. Also love your other posts on this thread, which has badly backfired on the OP. Lawyers tend to be universally know-alls, with the socialist ones the worst of all in this department.

Christ...it's a lawyer??? That explains everything.

[Carlos Parra]

LOL. I actually feel a bit sorry for you.

Don't let it bother you. I couldn't give a shit to be honest.

[Carlos Parra]

Yeah, a poor innocent deplorable who thinks it's all about him. Never argue with a mug, where would one begin anyway? Sky TV, WTF??

Can't you just imagine the Carlo household - Xmas lights festooning the front yard with one of those big rubber Santas. An deteriorating Vote No sign on the fence. Tradie ute out front covered with stickers - Vote No to Gay Whales, Fcuk the ABC, Easts to Win, They Fought for Our Freedom - Lest We Forget, Parra & Son Honest Prices. Modest Call Out Charge.

Who is the racist now? You couldn't refute a single point I made, but resorted instead to name calling and abuse.

Padded Cell 61 just proves his stinking hypocrisy and the breathtaking level of his irredeemable stupidity.

The love affair you have with tropes is mind numbing.

No doubt you get your talking points from Get-Up.

[Paddo Colt 61]

You didn't make any points Carlo. Goin' off is not a point. But look you could start by telling us what particular ABC news report offended you. That might throw some light on whom we're dealing with here. From what I can tell all there is, is bitterness and animus towards your brothers in RWB. Shame.

[Carlos Parra]

Nicely put Carlos. Also love your other posts on this thread, which has badly backfired on the OP. Lawyers tend to be universally know-alls, with the socialist ones the worst of all in this department.

Now that I've thought about it, the OP is probably not a lawyer and is just a conveyancer with delusions of grandeur.

That being said, I actually enjoy most of Ism's threads/comments.

[mightyrooster]

Good to see this thread has lived down to my expectations.

[Carlos Parra]

You didn't make any points Carlo. Goin' off is not a point. But look you could start by telling us what particular ABC news report offended you. That might throw some light on whom we're dealing with here. From what I can tell all there is, is bitterness and animus towards your brothers in RWB. Shame.

You said my comment was 100% fact free. I asked you to point out the lies/errors, but you failed miserably. You didn't even try.

For someone who tries to give off the appearance of being my 'better', you could at least educate yourself in matters of grammar.

It's not 'whom we're dealing with', it's 'who we're dealing with'.

Alternatively, you could have said 'with whom we are dealing'.

Get an education you imbecile.

[Carlos Parra]

Good to see this thread has lived down to my expectations.

It's always nice to deliver upon expectations - don't you think?

[Parkway_Drive]

Eating popcorn

[ism22]

Eating popcorn

Parky returns!!! Feels like it's been forever mate

[Rooster1908]

I know they legalized most drugs down in the ACT but for gods sake that doesn't mean you need to take all of them

[Paddo Colt 61]

You said my comment was 100% fact free. I asked you to point out the lies/errors, but you failed miserably. You didn't even try.

For someone who tries to give off the appearance of being my 'better', you could at least educate yourself in matters of grammar.

It's not 'whom we're dealing with', it's 'who we're dealing with'.

Alternatively, you could have said 'with whom we are dealing'.

Get an education you imbecile.

Oh dear...I warned you about this. Just let people think you fool, don't confirm it. I say that as bro in the RWB.

"Whom" is the object of the verb. "Who" is the subject as in "Who fcuked whom?". I said "whom we're dealing with" - in other words We do the dealing to the object of the sentence, "whom". They are the object. The dealing is done to them. The easy way to decide which to use is to substitute - if you can use "he" or "she", the word is "who" and if "him " or "her" it's "whom". Substituting, in the case of what I wrote, one wouldn't say "he we are dealing with", it would be "him". You must have been away the day that the class learned the difference.

See? This is why I won't argue with you. Your News Ltd "journalists" would hardly know the distinction, the Tele being written for a reading age of 10.4. The blokes on Sky came through the same system.

As for the "facts" I won't respond to, there are none, it's all rabid opinion. I know that you subscribe to News Ltd's alternative facts but:

* Albanese didn't release any criminals, if there are any, the High Court did. The Court ruled it is unconstitutional to detain refugees interminably. That is now the L-A-W!

* Albo didn't let in a flood of immigrants. The Immigration policy is bi-partisan. If anything Johnny Howard ramped it up to dampen wage growth. But whatever, we depend on migration for growth and revenue. MR can explain.

* Albo didn't/doesn't raise interest rates, nor do the Tories, the RBA which is independent of Government, does. I doubt that Sky is covering the current debate about whether or not that should continue. Certainly the Libs stacked the Board with business reps rather than independent experts.

You know I vowed not to respond because, usually, I will not engage mugs. I was good to you, I gave you sage advice, but you're an emotional chap and combined with that Latin inclination to believe the first opinion he hears I'm not sure that we have heard the last of you.

[Carlos Parra]

You know I vowed not to respond because, usually, I will not engage mugs. I was good to you, I gave you sage advice, but you're an emotional chap and combined with that Latin inclination to believe the first opinion he hears I'm not sure that we have heard the last of you.

More racism.

You're a hypocrite, Padded Cell 61.

With regard to the correct usage of who or whom - nice googling job. Are you vying to take over from King Salvo?

I posited the idea that your phrase was wrong. At worst it is grammatically clunky. Why don't you try goggling the phrase 'whom we're dealing with' and see how far you get? The first suggestion comes up as: “with whom we are dealing”. TROVE doesn't even like it.

You know you're wrong, but as is standard with lefty know-it-alls, you double down with a complete inability to accept a bit of education.

How lonely you must be in your high tower. Should I genuflect before you or prostrate myself at your feet in gratitude that you were good to me and gave me sage advice?

What a wanker!

[Paddo Colt 61]

Never concede the point is so rightist - black is white, truth is fiction, good is bad. Deflection is the go - you got it wrong but I could have expressed it better. I hope that you're not helping the kids with homework?

And what about those "facts" of yours? I went to all that trouble and no concession. Yours must be alternative facts? A Trump fan boy?