When would you support impeachment?

Sounds like you've never been to a casino. They have something called chips. Each chip represents a certain amount of money. You decide how much you want to bet by placing the chip on the table. Sometimes you have to place a minimum amount to play but that is posted ahead of time. There is no ambiguity. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It is not often that I jump to LLIdiot's defense. But it would seem to me that you should not be airing Idiot Family dirty laundry in public. Especially when it is your Patriarch that you are disagreeing with.

I would think that internal disputes within the House of Idiot's should be handled privately.

Hey Trending Idiot, are you having difficulty comprehending that you have accepted a "bet" in a public forum and are now trying to weasel your way out of it?

You know what they say in the non-idiot world, put up or STFU.

Either way, I'm a winner!

I'm a winner! Originally Posted by bigtex

Self-aggrandizement is remarkable at times when it ignores reality.

How much $$ was bet in the ORIGINAL offering?

You don't win much at "the tables" do you?

Here, let me say it for you: "AIRBORNE"

Again, for the dumbshit Airborne who hit his head too many times on the ground:

I will accept this bet and only this bet. I don't do monetary bets on the internet with anonymous people. But if you want to post your real name, address, and contact information I might consider doing a monetary bet.

It is up to you.

Like I said before......I will be happy to make the bet with you...but I won't wager money over the internet with a person who is anonymous and can easily welch on the bet....especially with someone who is trying to spin his way out of his own boasting....

So if you are seriously convinced that Obama's approval numbers will go back over 60% before he leaves office, then by all means take me up on my bet.


You won't. You are a weasel who likes to boast but can't put up.


My offer still stands:

You win, I disable my account for 6 months, I win you disable your account for same.

Now run away from this bet...............


See BigTex run................

Hey Trending Idiot, are you having difficulty comprehending that you have accepted a "bet" in a public forum and are now trying to weasel your way out of it?

You know what they say in the non-idiot world, put up or STFU.

Either way, I'm a winner! Originally Posted by bigtex

Fact remains that the RWWipes of ECCIE have overwhelmingly voted to impeach President Obama.

Yet he remains uncharged.

You can't even get your bets straight.

You fuckers are about as useful as a bunch of retards trying to fuck a doorknob!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And your about as useful as a blivet. That's 10 lbs of shit in a 5 lb bag. Lmao

My what?

My what? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your diapers.

Damn, don't you know anything?

You get them down at Enfield Drug, right?

And your about as useful as a blivet. That's 10 lbs of shit in a 5 lb bag. Lmao Originally Posted by seedman55

Whatever shit Assup can't fit in the 5 lb bag he can fit in his mouth! It's his "no-so secret" talent.

blivet:

ROTFLMAO

Apparently, BigTitsLiar (your mentor) doesn't want to make a bet using specific information .... so in order to avoid one of these pissing contests in 2017 to determine who the "bet winner" is and avoid the current state of confusion (to which you injected your lame-ass bullshit and putrid attitude) I MERELY inquired about the specifics ....

historically BigTitsLiar (and now apparently you) avoids committing to a specific set of facts upon which he desires to make a point so he can ...

"HEDGE HIS BETS"!!!!

And then later on repetitively and obsessively makes a factually wrong statement in order to bolster his "appearance" of correction ... and of course a "duffus" like you jumps on his bandwagon because ...... "AIRBORNE"?

Using your spurious analysis of a "contract" on a bet ... here's what I want you to do ..... go over to the new car dealer of your choice and sign a piece of paper agreeing to "BUY A CAR ON August 1, 2014" ... that's all on the paper:

"I, Munch, AGREE TO BUY A CAR FROM XYZ COMPANY ON August 1, 2014"

The next day ... you get a call and the salesman lets you know you need to bring $500,000 to the XYZ Company on August 1, 2014, when you get your car (which you haven't seen yet or know even the year or model)!

Go fuck yourself, MunchOnBigTitsAirBorne, ..

...... after you tell me "that's different"! Different because of "Airborne"?

Whirly doesn't need any "back bone" ... And for your lame-ass know-nothing business I was "entertaining" the idea of making BigTitsLiar a bet of my own .... but I am not a dumbass like you and actually believe that someone saying "I bet you" and another responding "I accept that bet" is a "contract" without specifics on what the bet is, how the winner will be determined, and how much is at risk....not to mention how the fuck anyone is going to pay off on an anonymous HOOKER BOARD!

"AIRBORNE"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Quit acting stupid. None of your examples apply.You have but one valid point. There is no way to collect a monetary debt.

Take Bigtex's bet with me using whirly's stakes as posted. 6 months of no-show here.

The bet: "And I'm willing to bet that Obama's approvals when he leaves office will be higher than the Shrub's exit approvals too. Any takers?" is pretty specific. What are their approval ratings on their last day of office?

For all his bluster, whirly has yet to acknowledge the bet he agreed to. The was only one. When Bigtex said $500, whirly said he wouldn't bet money. He did not make any kind of counter offer. He tried to change the bet.

Bigtex; You should know the pinheads can't see the difference between changing the stakes of the bet as opposed to changing the bet itself. Drop the money part which you know he will never agree to. The exercise here isn't to take money from him. It is to prove him wrong (and possibly get rid of him for 6 months) or to show he is welsher.
Apply the stakes he has set to the original bet.

Don't worry. He'll crawl away from those stakes too.

I predict that if he accepts the stakes he will be both. Because you know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he would honor it.

[B][SIZE=3]Quit acting stupid. You have but one valid point. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Yes. And that is there is no "meeting of the minds" when there is no agreement as to the "stakes' of winning or losing. End of story.

Sit at a Black Jack table, don't push chips out, and see if you get any cards.

It's as simple as that.

But BigTitsLiar consistently hedges on his predictions AND bets ...

.. he waits until the results are in then declares himself a winner.

He announces he was correct all along. He's infamous for it.

He is equally infamous for cherry picking posted words and assigning meaning to them, when the author has expressed the meaning, and apparently he believes that if he repeats it enough in "one-liners" everyone will actually believe he is correct. For instance ..

ask him to find a post in which he declared BEFORE the invasion of 2003 that there were no WMD's ..... he never did. He NEVER posted BEFORE the invasion of 2003 that it was "ILL-ADVISED"... in fact he has posted he was not "against" the invasion ... he wanted the "inspectors" to be "allowed" to "do their job".... of LOOKING FOR WMD'S!!

He claims that Bush said "Mission Accomplished" on the carrier. Bush didn't!

That is what HIS STUPID bet is about ....

..... and that's why I asked my questions. Go back and read his bet!

According to you:

"And I'm willing to bet that Obama's approvals when he leaves office will be higher than the Shrub's exit approvals too. Any takers?"

"approvals"
"when he leaves office"
"exit approvals"

who gets to decide which "approvals" and who gets to decide the date?

Talk about "blivets"!!!

Yes. And that is there is no "meeting of the minds" when there is no agreement as to the "stakes' of winning or losing. End of story.

Sit at Black Jack table, don't push chips out, and see if get cards.

It's as simple as that.

But BigTitsLiar consistently hedges on his predictions AND bets ...

.. he waits until the results are in then declares himself a winner.

He announces he was correct all along. He's infamous for it.

He is equally infamous for cherry picking posted words and assigning meaning to them, when the author has expressed the meaning, and apparently he believes that if he repeats it enough in "one-liners" everyone will actually believe he is correct. For instance ..

ask him to find a post in which he declared BEFORE the invasion of 2003 that there were no WMD's ..... he never did. He NEVER posted BEFORE the invasion of 2003 that it was "ILL-ADVISED"... in fact he has posted he was not "against" the invasion ... he wanted the "inspectors" to be "allowed" to "do their job".... of LOOKING FOR WMD'S!!

That is what HIS STUPID bet is about ....

..... and that's why I asked my questions. Go back and read his bet! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I posted his bet in my last post. How could you have missed it?

And you telling me what Bigtex may or may not be famous for doesn't mean shit to me. Because it has nothing to do with this bet.

My texts were all aimed at showing the pinhead brigade the difference between changing the stakes and changing the bet. Because he said I'll take that bet. When he was given an opening stake ($500), he didn't counter the stake. He tried to change the bet to cover another statement BT had made.

Everyone knows the sequence.
I bet I can eat 50 hardboiled eggs.
I'll take that bet.
For how much? And the negotiations begin. On the stakes, not the bet.

You also conveniently missed the bet I offered you.
I guess if you're afraid to bet, you're afraid to bet.

Munchmasterman, I was eventually planning to go there but now is as good of a time as any to lay it all on the line.

AIRBORNE!

Ok, Trendy I am willing to go above and beyond. The bet is on my original offer (post #6 of this thread) that you previously accepted (post #9 of this thread) and have since tried desperately to weasel out of.

The wager is as follows:

I am willing to wager that Obama's (exit approvals) when he leaves office will be higher than G.W.Bush's (exit approvals) when he left office. Trendy's wager will be the opposite!

I will not only bet against you for any monetary dollar amount ($1 - $500), up to and including the $500 figure. (We can even mutually agree upon someone to hold the money for the interim period).

I am also willing to bet the 6 months of disabling my Eccie account if I lose against Trendy disabling his Eccie account for 6 months if he loses.

Trendy, you have the best of both worlds. We can bet from $1 - $500 and/or bet to disable our Eccie account.

Trendy, you have the exclusive "right to choose" (Friggin' Libtard).

Which will it be?

Trendy, can you hear me now?

Did I remember to say AIRBORNE?

Yes. And that is there is no "meeting of the minds" when there is no agreement as to the "stakes' of winning or losing. End of story.

Sit at a Black Jack table, don't push chips out, and see if you get any cards.

It's as simple as that.

But BigTitsLiar consistently hedges on his predictions AND bets ...

.. he waits until the results are in then declares himself a winner.

He announces he was correct all along. He's infamous for it.

He is equally infamous for cherry picking posted words and assigning meaning to them, when the author has expressed the meaning, and apparently he believes that if he repeats it enough in "one-liners" everyone will actually believe he is correct. For instance ..

ask him to find a post in which he declared BEFORE the invasion of 2003 that there were no WMD's ..... he never did. He NEVER posted BEFORE the invasion of 2003 that it was "ILL-ADVISED"... in fact he has posted he was not "against" the invasion ... he wanted the "inspectors" to be "allowed" to "do their job".... of LOOKING FOR WMD'S!!

He claims that Bush said "Mission Accomplished" on the carrier. Bush didn't!

That is what HIS STUPID bet is about ..Sorry Charlie. I saw a simple bet. That's a major problem on this board. Instead of reading the words and taking them at face value, you assign nuances and your own personal values and definitions to fuck up the mix.

..... and that's why I asked my questions. Go back and read his bet! Here is his bet. And I'm willing to bet that Obama's approvals when he leaves office will be higher than the Shrub's exit approvals too. Any takers?"

According to you:

"And I'm willing to bet that Obama's approvals when he leaves office will be higher than the Shrub's exit approvals too. Any takers?"

"approvals" His approval rating . The source can be agreed on.
"when he leaves office" Give me a fucking break. The day they left the office.
"exit approvals" I would say that would be his approval rating, you know, on the day he exits the office.

who gets to decide which "approvals" and who gets to decide the date?

Talk about "blivets"!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Again, those are negotiations of the specifics of the bet. They don't change the bet.

Whirly could have put every condition in the world on the way the bet was decided. He could have walked away if BT wouldn't budge.

But he didn't do that. He made no counter offer.

He tried to change the bet after he agreed to it.
Then he started to spin. And you said nothing.

So you don't want the bet either.