Trump and Cruz - Personal Attacks

[aujeff11 6,243]

jeff - While some try to harass me for posting too often, YOU wanna nag me for not posting promptly enough ?

:laugh:/>

there's real life happening off the interwebs.

I wasn't nagging you; I was answering your question about why I said crickets...

[AURaptor 1,137]

The crickets nonsense was because I asked a question and didn't receive an answer.

In a mere few hours , I didn't respond, and that clearly agitated you enough to post ' crickets ', implying I was dodging or avoiding your question.

I think that's a bit excessive.

[aujeff11 6,243]

The crickets nonsense was because I asked a question and didn't receive an answer.

In a mere few hours , I didn't respond, and that clearly agitated you enough to post ' crickets ', implying I was dodging or avoiding your question.

I think that's a bit excessive.

WTF are you talking about? It was four hours and a whole page later when I said it. Also, I only said it to bump the question. You're the one being excessive.....

"There's real life happening off the interwebs."

LMAO! This statement is coming from you. Wtf do you even do every day other than bash O on these threads. Sometimes I wonder if you even see the sun every now and then.

[AURaptor 1,137]

The crickets nonsense was because I asked a question and didn't receive an answer.

In a mere few hours , I didn't respond, and that clearly agitated you enough to post ' crickets ', implying I was dodging or avoiding your question.

I think that's a bit excessive.

WTF are you talking about? It was four hours and two pages later when I said it. Also, I only said it to bump the question. You're the one being excessive.....

4 whole hours ???

WOW !

Look at the timeline of events... Wed afternoon, I made a post. A full day later ( 22 hours ) you replied. Then, when I didn't reply with in a few hours, you bumped in with 'crickets'. Impatient , aren't we ? I finally got around to replying ( with the facts )

[aujeff11 6,243]

The crickets nonsense was because I asked a question and didn't receive an answer.

In a mere few hours , I didn't respond, and that clearly agitated you enough to post ' crickets ', implying I was dodging or avoiding your question.

I think that's a bit excessive.

WTF are you talking about? It was four hours and two pages later when I said it. Also, I only said it to bump the question. You're the one being excessive.....

:laugh:/> 4 whole hours ???

WOW !

Like I said, you're the one acting "excessive"

[AURaptor 1,137]

How am I acting 'excessive ' ???

* Look at the timeline of events... Wed afternoon, I made a post. A full day later ( 22 hours ) you replied. Then, when I didn't reply with in a few hours, you bumped in with 'crickets'. Impatient , aren't we ? I finally got around to replying ( with the facts )

It's YOU who is acting excessive, and needlessly so.

[aujeff11 6,243]

The crickets nonsense was because I asked a question and didn't receive an answer.

In a mere few hours , I didn't respond, and that clearly agitated you enough to post ' crickets ', implying I was dodging or avoiding your question.

I think that's a bit excessive.

WTF are you talking about? It was four hours and two pages later when I said it. Also, I only said it to bump the question. You're the one being excessive.....

:laugh:/> 4 whole hours ???

WOW !

Look at the timeline of events... Wed afternoon, I made a post. A full day later ( 22 hours ) you replied. Then, when I didn't reply with in a few hours, you bumped in with 'crickets'. Impatient , aren't we ? I finally got around to replying ( with the facts )

WTF. You responded to two other posts after mine so I didn't want my question to be forgotten. I wasn't even really asking you in particular to answer the question. I wanted info from anybody that knew anything about the SBYA provision. Once again, it wasn't directed at you. You only provided context that sparked my question!!! Quit being so butthurt.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Bizarre. You're the one acting butthurt here pal. If you didn't direct the question to me, then why quote me in your reply ? You're directing your question TO ME, first and foremost.

Guess you still don't understand how this works.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Bizarre. You're the one acting butthurt here pal. If you didn't direct the question to me, then why quote me in your reply ? You're directing your question TO ME, first and foremost.

Guess you still don't understand how this works.

I quoted you but that doesn't necessarily mean I was talking to you. People say things all the time and I quote the posts as they bring context to my question. Guess you don't understand...

[AURaptor 1,137]

Bizarre. You're the one acting butthurt here pal. If you didn't direct the question to me, then why quote me in your reply ? You're directing your question TO ME, first and foremost.

Guess you still don't understand how this works.

I quoted you but that doesn't necessarily mean I was talking to you. People say things all the time and I quote the posts as they bring context to my question. Guess you don't understand...

The reason for the quote feature is to directly respond to the person you're quoting. If you just wanted to ask a general question, there's no need to use my or anyone else's quote in your post.

I'm not the one who doesn't understand how this works.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Bizarre. You're the one acting butthurt here pal. If you didn't direct the question to me, then why quote me in your reply ? You're directing your question TO ME, first and foremost.

Guess you still don't understand how this works.

I quoted you but that doesn't necessarily mean I was talking to you. People say things all the time and I quote the posts as they bring context to my question. Guess you don't understand...

The reason for the quote feature is to directly respond to the person you're quoting. If you just wanted to ask a general question, there's no need to use my or anyone else's quote in your post.

I'm not the one who doesn't understand how this works.

Yes you are. Anybody that reads over the conversation can adequately see that I asked a question to the whole board that related to your post. Are you pretending to be stupid this mawning or is this the real you?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Wow...you're showing ignorance and stubborn . Nice two-fer.

[RunInRed 18,113]

And it continues ...

Cruz accuses Trump of planting National Enquirer story alleging affairs

http://politi.co/1WOwx7Y

[telling tiger 156]

Saw Cruz whining about a tabloid story...didn't know it was the Enquirer....

So the actual search for the bottom is still ongoing.

Amazing.

[Grumps 3,706]

Saw Cruz whining about a tabloid story...didn't know it was the Enquirer....

So the actual search for the bottom is still ongoing.

Amazing.

The fact that Trump prefers to continue to wallow in the mud with Cruz despite a commanding delegate lead is indeed amazing. To me, this says more about Trump's potential character deficit than anything else I have seen.

[alexava 6,974]

Saw Cruz whining about a tabloid story...didn't know it was the Enquirer....

So the actual search for the bottom is still ongoing.

Amazing.

The fact that Trump prefers to continue to wallow in the mud with Cruz despite a commanding delegate lead is indeed amazing. To me, this says more about Trump's potential character deficit than anything else I have seen.

i think you are correct. It is more about his drive to win than his ability to lead. he has nowhere to go but down in the primary process.