If I was your opposing attorney I would be laughing right now saying, “this guy doesn’t even know the difference between an opinion and circumstantial evidence, nor does he understand the man he cited (Buffet) is evil”.
I would also laugh knowing my opposing attorney doesn’t even read the evidence submitted!
Then I would ask myself, “how on earth did this guy even get out of law school, let alone pass the bar?”.
Then I would start celebrating my victory knowing the guy has no chance in hell against me!
The fact that you say Buffett is evil because you say so is all that one has to know about your unfortunate modus operandi.
Most importantly, it doesn't answer the comparison I made using Buffett to your laughable unsubstantiated bs you offered about Tom Hanks.
I guess that is beyond either your comprehension and/or that you are pinned against the rope and realize that you can't rebut
my analogy.
As I said before your so called "evidence" is in fact not evidence at all but rather one way/slanted material much of which is opinion only
and is no better or worse than the "evidence" I have supplied from other sources which I deem to be credible.
At best I would say the same about you and more likely, how did he even make it through college.
The most important UNDENIBLE FACT/EVIDENCE so far seven hours to go until Easter Sunday ends(with Easter Monday to go) is that none of what
you said in post 52 has come true on this day or the other two dates you cited previously which failed.
Any denial of this on your part constitutes LYING; there is no way to get around it (other than of course your flimsy, laughable, cryptic bullshit
that everything that you said in post 52 and many other posts re:the exposure of the likes of the conspiracy theories and the "evil" noted
democrats as well as the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, has come true.
How about addressing that and/or is it a case of trying to weasel out of it saying that your predictions have in fact occurred today or will by
Tuesday at 12:00 AM, and that if one cannot see it other than you and your delusional cult following, that the the former have "not yet
evolved to the point where they can see it).
On the other hand, the question is at this juncture why should anyone argue with anyone who believes that last night Tom Hanks did not
conduct the interview from his home.
Frankly I am surprised(unless I missed something)that you did not say that the person we saw on tv was not in fact Tom Hanks but perhaps a humanoid
with facial resemblance of Hanks concocted by Bill Gates to give the impression that we were seeing Hanks. lol
ps As it looks pretty obvious that I am going to walk away from this thread this week having completed my God
felt mission of exposing for you for what you are, I am probably going to miss it a bit, because I do enjoy "taking candy from a baby"a
s is the case here.