Nothing to say until they thought they won

We've already established that you cannot count, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Eating your words ekim the inbred chimp?

Nice try, douche-bag.
You've been caught lying and now you're trying to flip the script.
I never said he was invited in. I didn't say anything not supported by the audio tape

Again, he didn't ask him to leave. He made a statement about talking to him later and to talk to Shane. Not "go" talk to Shane. The "Okay, speak with Shane, please." was a talk over the "Yeah, but there's not going to be time. I'm just curious..." statement. The attack came less than 2 seconds after the "Okay, speak with Shane, please." statement.

Jacobs: … the CBO score. Because, you know, you've been waiting to make your decision about health care until you saw the bill, and it just came out …

Gianforte: We'll talk to you about that later.

Jacobs: Yeah, but there's not going to be time. I'm just curious ...

Gianforte: Okay, speak with Shane, please.

Jacobs: But, you gotta ...

[loud crunching noises] The assault

You're a liar, masterdickmuncher. No where in that transcript does Gianforte invite Jacobs into his office; Can you even read? You're making things up. I didn't say he was invited in meanwhile, there are several remarks where Gianforte tells Jacobs he didn't intend to speak with Jacobs at that time,You specifically said, "and ignored repeated requests that he leave". That's not true masterdickmuncher. Gianforte explicitly said "We'll talk to you about that later" and go "speak with Shane, please", you lying SOB.Explicitly? How would you know that? Another instance of you using your opinion as fact. You don't speaka-the-English too well. It's not up to you to determine what he meant. You saying "explicitly" is your attempt at covering your ass. He didn't say any of the normal "leave" words. Such as "go, "exit", "leave", etc.
It was less than 5 seconds after he said "later" that the attack sounds occur. They were still talking.
As part of your hubris assuming the candidate wanting you to lie for him, you've called me a liar and lied about what I said. Your charge comes up empty again.
You did lie about them asking him to leave before the assault. They were still talking when he grabbed Jacobs. And while you'll say anything to keep from being proven a liar, I've only used information available from Fox, Guardian, The WP, and others.
All typical he-be-a-douche-bag behavior

[/SIZE] Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Let's be clear right off the bat.
Jacobs did nothing, in any reasonable person's mind, to provoke an assault. The Fox reporter said, “To be clear,” she wrote, “at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff’s deputies.”
The campaign released a statement that was mostly at odds with the tape.

It's fucking hilarious to see Manmuncher call someone a liar.

Hey, Manmuncher! Be sure to open a bottle of Thunderbird tonight and swill liberally before posting your next bucket of drivel.

Your meltdowns are more amusing when you're three sheets to the wind! Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

Once again, the chicken shit says something he can't back up. Have any examples of me lying? Of course not.

Meltdown? If you being stupid was going to stress me out I would have vapor-locked long before now. I have come to terms with you being a flaming asshole.
You want to see a meltdown, look at the dicksuckingklansman. All he can do is copy and paste other people's posts

It really burns you that you can't use the facts. So you call it drivel. According to you, I'm drunk as I refute you and your ilk's punk ass bullshit with ease. You must be projecting.
Run away little girl

the one thing they never do is admit failure, they blame it on somebody else, never them.
__________________
Dilbert Firestorm

Explicitly? How would you know that? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

"How do we know" your stupid-ass asks, masterdickmuncher? His remarks are in the text YOUR stupid-ass cited, masterdickmuncher. Take your head out of your ass and re-read what the fuck you posted, masterdickmuncher, and the uninvited Jacobs shoving a recording device in Gianforte's face after he was invited to go away provoked an appropriate response.

It really burns you that you can't use the facts. So you call it drivel. According to you, I'm drunk as I refute you and your ilk's punk ass bullshit with ease... Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Actually, I don't know whether you're drunk when you post your typical mindless drivel. Maybe you're just astonishingly stupid.

But I challenge you to go right ahead and "refute" anything I ever posted, you illiterate, obtuse asshole. Anything! Be specific.

We all know that you won't, because you can't. You're just a loudmouthed, ignorant troll. Nothing more.

Explicitly is your word,
douche-bag. It isn't in the transcript.
"How do we know?"? You have a tranny in your pocket? I asked how you know that.

If he was trying to be explicit, he would have asked him to leave or used a similar word. Saying you'll discuss something later doesn't mean leave this instant.

Once again you play fast and loose with the truth.

"As the crew was setting up, Gianforte was approached by the Guardian’s Ben Jacobs, who put a voice recorder “to Gianforte’s face and began asking if he had a response to the newly released Congressional Budget Office report on the American Health Care Act,” the Republican replacement for the Affordable Care Act, she wrote"

Just because you like the word "shove" doesn't mean that's what he did. "Placed" is the word used. The phone was in the same location from the beginning. It wasn't "shoved" in "after he was invited to go away."
You keep asking if I've read what I posted. It's obvious you haven't. It's right in front of you and you add things not said at all as well as misquotes.
It all boils down to whether or not he was asked to leave. You claim saying they would talk later is asking him to leave. Only because you don't want to be wrong. You said explicitly. His statement wasn't. The police didn't think so either apparently. They issued him a citation for misdemeanor assault.


explicit
[ik-splis-it]

adjective
1.
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:
explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2.
clearly developed or formulated:
explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3.
definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken:
He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4.
described or shown in realistic detail:
explicit sexual scenes.

"shoved" or "placed"...isn't that like "body slammed" and "pushed". Word choice is critical which is why the reporter's story stinks. Extremely few people would say "body slammed" in the heat of the moment unless it was planned for the machine to record. Jacobs did have a recorder going but no video so his words were made for audio only. I guess he expected the guppies of the world to believe him and he could say that he took one for the team. Didn't work though, Gianforte was elected, Acuna did not back him up after some reflection, and Jacobs will look like a fool when this is done. Only that last thing is a plus...for a liberal. He'll probably get a promotion or get a part time gig on MSNBC.

It's explicit -- not garbled or unintelligible -- in the text, masterdickmuncher. Wipe the jizz out of your eyes so you can read, you cum-blinded, dick-sucking SOB.

GadDamn JD...70% of the votes were vast BEFORE this incident.



.

"shoved" or "placed"...isn't that like "body slammed" and "pushed". Word choice is critical which is why the reporter's story stinks. Extremely few people would say "body slammed" in the heat of the moment unless it was planned for the machine to record. Jacobs did have a recorder going but no video so his words were made for audio only. I guess he expected the guppies of the world to believe him and he could say that he took one for the team. Didn't work though, Gianforte was elected, Acuna did not back him up after some reflection, and Jacobs will look like a fool when this is done. Only that last thing is a plus...for a liberal. He'll probably get a promotion or get a part time gig on MSNBC. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Try the fox news crew who witnessed the incident.
See the words they used.
Not hard for a scholar like you, look it up.

Anything? You're a funny guy. Stupid, but funny.

This is easy. You claim I'm illiterate.
I'm not illiterate.
Your douche-bag challenge collapsed pretty quick, didn't it?

I'll get back to you with a challenge for you.

And if you're not too busy, maybe you could tell me a time you refuted me on a factual issue. It should be easy to find for a pompous ass. Finding one from you was easy.

Actually, I don't know whether you're drunk when you post your typical mindless drivel. Maybe you're just astonishingly stupid.

But I challenge you to go right ahead and "refute" anything I ever posted, you illiterate, obtuse asshole. Anything! Be specific.

We all know that you won't, because you can't.I can and I did. Easily. You're just a loudmouthed, ignorant troll. Nothing more. Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

How ironic. I couldn't have defined you better myself except you're not a troll.
You're just a douche-bag.

The witness used the words "placed" and "slammed". She witnessed it and you don't like her words. It's pretty obvious he expected to be assaulted so he had that word ready (h/s). And I'm sure he didn't expect it to be on video with a news crew in there (h/s).

"shoved" or "placed"...isn't that like "body slammed" and "pushed". Word choice is critical which is why the reporter's story stinks. Extremely few people would say "body slammed" in the heat of the moment unless They were bodyslammed? Except she didn't say "body slammed". Jacobs said it. She said slammed. it was planned for the machine to record. Jacobs did have a recorder going but no video so his words were made for audioBecause he is a print journalist. They record audio so they have a record to write from. They used to write on those little pads. Now they record responses (that's so they can quote a person) and personal notes. only. I guess he expected the guppies of the world to believe him and he could say that he took one for the team. Didn't work though, Gianforte was elected, Acuna did not back him up after some reflection, and Jacobs will look like a fool when this is done. Only that last thing is a plus...for a liberal. He'll probably get a promotion or get a part time gig on MSNBC. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

The only part of her story that changed was she had said the hands were around his neck.
She changed it to the hands were on either side of the neck, possibly holding on to loose material.
She still maintains he was "slammed" on the ground.
You think this guy will get reelected in 2018? A republican might win the election but it won't be him.

That's okay. We'll use your word. Since it is explicit then he didn't ask him to leave. The only "fully and clearly expressed" thoughts "leaving nothing merely implied" were they would talk later and he was supposed to talk to Shane. Leaving was implied at best. 2 seconds after he said to talk to Shane, he attacked Jacobs. Read the definition of the word. Scream some more. Have a stroke.

It's explicit -- not garbled or unintelligible -- in the text, masterdickmuncher. Wipe the jizz out of your eyes so you can read, you cum-blinded, dick-sucking SOB. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

explicit
[ik-splis-it]

adjective
1.
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:
explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2.
clearly developed or formulated:
explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3.
definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken:
He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.

That's okay. We'll use your word. Since it is explicit then he didn't ask him to leave. The only "fully and clearly expressed" thoughts "leaving nothing merely implied" were they would talk later and he was supposed to talk to Shane. Leaving was implied at best. 2 seconds after he said to talk to Shane, he attacked Jacobs. Read the definition of the word. Scream some more. Have a stroke.

explicit
[ik-splis-it]

adjective
1.
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:
explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2.
clearly developed or formulated:
explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3.
definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken:
He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Gianforte explicitly told Jacobs to go speak to another individual who wasn't in the room at that time, masterdickmuncher. That explicitly meant get the fuck out of the room he was in and go to another room and find that individual in another room, you retarded dick-sucker.

Gianforte explicitly told Jacobs to go speak to another individual who wasn't in the room at that time, masterdickmuncher. That explicitly meant get the fuck out of the room he was in and go to another room and find that individual in another room, you retarded dick-sucker. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're stupid. And wrong Two conditions you are real familiar with. You saying something is correct doesn't mean shit.
He says something and then attacks a person talking to him 2 seconds later? His statement left nothing implied?

It was fun proving you wrong. Keep up the good work.

You're stupid. And wrong Two conditions you are real familiar with. You saying something is correct doesn't mean shit.
He says something and then attacks a person talking to him 2 seconds later? His statement left nothing implied?

It was fun proving you wrong. Keep up the good work. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Pointing out how you're a liar and stupid to boot has been a real pleasure, masterdickmuncher.