Comments on: mikeb302000, lying criminal

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:02:08 +0000

the way things are going

These days, I almost (almost) feel sorry for MikeB302000 – he just cannot catch a break. Earlier this month, SayUncle summarily dismissed him: Mike, I note that you didn’t address my point. Because you’re stupid. Go away, the adults are…

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:32 +0000

clearing out the rodents

I really cannot blame Breda for going this route: I am now and forevermore going to be deleting comments by mikeb302000 because all he ever does is come here and try to stir up arguments. This is not a person…

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:10:47 +0000

you must be joking

A few days back, I noticed this post over at Days of our Trailers, and was going to leave a comment… until I saw that MikeB302000 beat me to it. Staggered by the blind faith and insistence on unproven ‘realities’…

By: The View From North Central Idaho

The View From North Central Idaho — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:51:10 +0000

Quote of the day–Linoge

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:20:48 +0000

truth and falsity

Given that Kevin will be forced to upgrade/change his commenting system in the near future, I figured this needed to be preserved for posterity’s sake: MikeB, I may be getting a glimmer of what it going on here too. Could…

By: Linoge

Linoge — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:43:54 +0000

Makes sense, Weer’d – after all, if they can rationalize that everyone would do what they did if given the chance, then it is not so bad that they do it, right?
Fortunately, they are quite wrong.
Not everyone has criminal tendencies. Not everyone would break the law if given the chance or opportunity. And MikeB implying such things only shows the tenuous and fallacious nature of his argument.

By: Weer'd Beard

Weer'd Beard — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:30:08 +0000

I’ve heard from criminal psychologists such projection is VERY common with criminals.
They just assume everybody has urges to rape children, or kill people, or do drugs until their lives collapse, or compulsively steal.
They just think they have a little more trouble reining it in than you or I.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:54:04 +0000

mikeb302000:

Thanks for that hilarious post.

Why is law-breaking hilarious to you, MikeB? Why is lying hilarious to you? Does that not denote a complete and utter contempt for the laws and rules you have broken, a complete and total lack of remorse, and a willingness to do it all over again? Does that not damage your nearly-non-existent credibility all the more?

Only a guy like you could challenge Weer'd for the biggest obsession about me.

How is it "obsession" to point out the very things you have said? How is it "obsession" to indicate where you have lied in the past? How is it "obsession" to expose you as the scumbag you so very much desire to be? You keep using words, but you do not appear to have any understanding of what they actually mean.

I was obviously referring to the "bragging all over the internet" part.

What "bragging all over the internet" part? You deleted Weer'd's comment, and thus any basis you would have for making that statement went right along with it. You deleted the very evidence that might have vindicated you in this situation, and given that you are a documented, proven liar, I have absolutely no reason to believe you. Even if that was what you were saying (and you only really embarked on that schtick after we called you out for your lies and criminal history), there are multiple times in the past where you have both denied ever owning illegal firearms, and denied ever making the claim that you did own illegal firearms. This just happened to be the most recent.

I doubt very much that I'm the only one in the room with a past...

But you have no evidence, no facts, and certainly no admissions to back up that specious, fallacious, and leading comment... On the other hand, we have you, of your own free will, admitting to owning illegal firearms in the past. Nope, you have only your faith, and your beliefs... why do you insist on playing the role of "the woman with the earrings" so very often? So was that admission a lie too, MikeB? Where did the firearms go when you supposedly moved out of the States? How did you come by the illegally-owned ones? Where did they end up when you left the country? Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't need to lie to deal with you guys.

Then why do you lie, almost every single day? I notice you still have not addressed the lies so prevalent in your previous comment here - why is that? Do you not like getting your hand caught in the cookie jar of lies? Or do you acknowledge your position as indefensible, and do not even bother? Weer'd: The similarities are quite disturbing are they not? The same "everyone else does it" defense. The same flippant attitude. The same disregard for a law so flagrantly violated. Roman Polanski - MikeB's role model and hero!

By: Weer'd Beard

Weer'd Beard — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:14:24 +0000

“I doubt very much that I’m the only one in the room with a past, but believe me, I don’t need to lie to deal with you guys.” -MikeB302000 (Criminal)
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!” -Roman Polanski (Criminal)

By: mikeb302000

mikeb302000 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:44:32 +0000

Linoge, Thanks for that hilarious post. Only a guy like you could challenge Weer’d for the biggest obsession about me.
One thing I’d like to clarify though, is this. When I said,”Weer’d's lying in an attempt to personally attack me. Why do you think he hasn’t provided links to all that bragging all over the internet that I’m supposed to have done?” I was obviously referring to the “bragging all over the internet” part. I even asked “Why do you think he hasn’t provided links to all that bragging all over the internet that I’m supposed to have done?”
I doubt very much that I’m the only one in the room with a past, but believe me, I don’t need to lie to deal with you guys.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:45:56 +0000

Weer'd: Some of the woman's denial was based on naivte, there is no doubt, but a lot of it was simply due to her own irrational faith that d'Anconia was wrong, regardless of what the facts or reality of the situation indicated. Denial for denial's sake, so to speak. MikeB still possesses some of those same properties and qualities, it is just that his self-admitted criminal history adds a whole new layer of despicableness to his cries for more laws. At any rate, I have said it before, and I will say it again: those who disarm law-abiding citizens aid and abet criminals directly. Criminals like disarmed, defenseless victims, and anyone who helps those who prey on the innocent are despicable individuals indeed. Bob S.: The sad thing is that Scalia directly addressed the first thirteen words, as you mentioned, only he addressed them in a way that directly disagrees with MikeB's personal opinions on the matter. The first 13 words were there because the Founding Fathers recognized the use and utility of an armed populace - they mandated that the population should be allowed to be armed because they wanted the backup force of a civilian militia, not the other way around. But, as you and Weer'd showed, lying comes to MikeB naturally. Dirtcrashr: Kind of makes you wonder, does it not?

By: dirtcrashr

dirtcrashr — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:53:30 +0000

A lying liar lies from Rome? An expat hides like Polanski from justice perhaps?

By: Bob S.

Bob S. — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:33:26 +0000

And he continues his lies even today.
I think I know the answer to that. The answer lies in the first 13 words. These are the 13 words that Justice Scalia left out in order to come to his “majority decision” in Heller. Is that right?
These are the lies that we need everyone to see. The ones that the fence sitters might not notice.
This was the reason I resorted to calling him on his repeated lies….so that others could see that he was dishonest.
Scalia left out the first 13 words? Hardly! Much of the decision was devoted to discussing those words….yet MikeB302000 lies.

By: Weer'd Beard

Weer'd Beard — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:31:40 +0000

Great post, Linoge! Tho I wonder if “the woman with the earrings” moniker fits him anymore. Sure the blatant and ignorant denial is all there, but one might assume the woman was in such denial because of idyllic naivete (Something MikeB was well known for feigning in the past) Meanwhile it’s fairly obvious that MikeB’s admission of criminal acts, but refusal to discuss the issue, meanwhile constant calls for stricter laws and legal boundaries for lawful gun owners.
I think he’s pretty clear that his loyalties lie with the criminals, and his plans are simply to put them at an advantage over the lawful citizen.