Scalabrine once again proves that he has no clue what he is talking about, and cannot control the diarrhea that regularly spews from his mouth.
As I referenced in another thread, once you break down Scalabrine's well-written novellas, and analyze its content, you quickly realize that he prides himself on drivel.
Yes folks, because now the standard on covers is if you won you were lucky and if you lose you have no idea what you were talking about.
In a district that was won by an more than an average of 25+ points in past several elections, a district ruled by the acolytes the GOP kissed the feet of in Newt for DECADES, this one was decided by <5%.
Not only is that a showing, I would think the GOP should defecate their boxers with a result like this in a GOP stronghold. They are of course, as evidenced by this thread doing no such thing.
That is being 'way off'. That is having 'no clue'.
Who here, just ONE person will now follow Wizard over me?
I want ONE person. ONE.
Oh wait, you can't follow him, he doesn't post diddly squat.
Eat drink and be merry today defamers and GOP minions. For tomorrow, your obsolescence is coming.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wizardofroz:
Scalabrine once again proves that he has no clue what he is talking about, and cannot control the diarrhea that regularly spews from his mouth.
As I referenced in another thread, once you break down Scalabrine's well-written novellas, and analyze its content, you quickly realize that he prides himself on drivel.
Yes folks, because now the standard on covers is if you won you were lucky and if you lose you have no idea what you were talking about.
In a district that was won by an more than an average of 25+ points in past several elections, a district ruled by the acolytes the GOP kissed the feet of in Newt for DECADES, this one was decided by <5%.
Not only is that a showing, I would think the GOP should defecate their boxers with a result like this in a GOP stronghold. They are of course, as evidenced by this thread doing no such thing.
That is being 'way off'. That is having 'no clue'.
Who here, just ONE person will now follow Wizard over me?
I want ONE person. ONE.
Oh wait, you can't follow him, he doesn't post diddly squat.
Eat drink and be merry today defamers and GOP minions. For tomorrow, your obsolescence is coming.
Scal, if you are a fan of this guy's work, as I am (loved Deadwood and Luck, while they lasted), you will be very interested in this story. I had no idea:
Scal, if you are a fan of this guy's work, as I am (loved Deadwood and Luck, while they lasted), you will be very interested in this story. I had no idea:
In a district that was won by an more than an average of 25+ points in past several elections, a district ruled by the acolytes the GOP kissed the feet of in Newt for DECADES, this one was decided by <5%.
Yes, but...
(A) All of these realities were very well known before this election
(B) You laid (-145) if I remember correctly, despite all of this
(C) You essentially called it a sure thing
Stop trying to act like you and the MSM didn't embarrass yourself with respect to this election... take your medicine!
The Dude imbibes
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
In a district that was won by an more than an average of 25+ points in past several elections, a district ruled by the acolytes the GOP kissed the feet of in Newt for DECADES, this one was decided by <5%.
Yes, but...
(A) All of these realities were very well known before this election
(B) You laid (-145) if I remember correctly, despite all of this
(C) You essentially called it a sure thing
Stop trying to act like you and the MSM didn't embarrass yourself with respect to this election... take your medicine!
Scal, if you are a fan of this guy's work, as I am (loved Deadwood and Luck, while they lasted), you will be very interested in this story. I had no idea:
The guy was so good he'd lie prone on the ground and dictate his thoughts to writers. Wow. That's good...
Interesting read to say the least BB.
0
Quote Originally Posted by begginerboy:
Scal, if you are a fan of this guy's work, as I am (loved Deadwood and Luck, while they lasted), you will be very interested in this story. I had no idea:
(A) All of these realities were very well known before this election
(B) You laid (-145) if I remember correctly, despite all of this
(C) You essentially called it a sure thing
Stop trying to act like you and the MSM didn't embarrass yourself with respect to this election... take your medicine!
I'm trying to understand what the fascination is with chalk or + money on this site as though it can never be laid.
People gave me tons of shi* for taking Nunes over Rousey a winning bet in seconds at +130 because I could have gotten it at +200. As though +130 was trash. As though Rousey was the bet because the +200 was no longer available. That is capping at it's absolute worst.
And your quote is one of your downfalls.
"You laid -145 and it LOST!"
Uh yeah. Favorites who lose, lose on negative ML's every single day. And it's not rare. In fact, it is rare for it NOT to happen in a betting day, several times. AND you say it as if I had a spread I passed up. ALL of these exotics are negative or positive moneylines so you are providing a point that is brutally obvious to the lowest of imbeciles. That is, it isn't worth pointing out because you are, in fact, providing nothing of note.
No one said it was a sure thing. I get pist off when people degrade the bet then have NO counterargument so I lay into them. As I should. Because if you don't have a counterargument, don't defame a play.
And every time you Trumpettes type MSM, you make the world of libs keel over with laughter.
Group up. That never was an abbreviation to begin with. Type out the words if you want to say it. It exemplifies the laziness your party allegedly despises. You say it SO much, you had to abbreviate it. It's pathetic.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Duderonomy:
Yes, but...
(A) All of these realities were very well known before this election
(B) You laid (-145) if I remember correctly, despite all of this
(C) You essentially called it a sure thing
Stop trying to act like you and the MSM didn't embarrass yourself with respect to this election... take your medicine!
I'm trying to understand what the fascination is with chalk or + money on this site as though it can never be laid.
People gave me tons of shi* for taking Nunes over Rousey a winning bet in seconds at +130 because I could have gotten it at +200. As though +130 was trash. As though Rousey was the bet because the +200 was no longer available. That is capping at it's absolute worst.
And your quote is one of your downfalls.
"You laid -145 and it LOST!"
Uh yeah. Favorites who lose, lose on negative ML's every single day. And it's not rare. In fact, it is rare for it NOT to happen in a betting day, several times. AND you say it as if I had a spread I passed up. ALL of these exotics are negative or positive moneylines so you are providing a point that is brutally obvious to the lowest of imbeciles. That is, it isn't worth pointing out because you are, in fact, providing nothing of note.
No one said it was a sure thing. I get pist off when people degrade the bet then have NO counterargument so I lay into them. As I should. Because if you don't have a counterargument, don't defame a play.
And every time you Trumpettes type MSM, you make the world of libs keel over with laughter.
Group up. That never was an abbreviation to begin with. Type out the words if you want to say it. It exemplifies the laziness your party allegedly despises. You say it SO much, you had to abbreviate it. It's pathetic.
After the election John Ossloff was heard to say at least she's not my Congresswoman........
did he move into another district ? , or really never was in that district and rented a room.... moved back inj with his campaign manager that person must of made a fortune. interesting how this "team " squandered all that loot.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
After the election John Ossloff was heard to say at least she's not my Congresswoman........
did he move into another district ? , or really never was in that district and rented a room.... moved back inj with his campaign manager that person must of made a fortune. interesting how this "team " squandered all that loot.
I'm trying to understand what the fascination is with chalk or + money on this site as though it can never be laid.
Whoa there buddy! I never said anything remotely like that... don't try to spin this with your bullsh!t!
You quoted a bunch of statistics that were meant to justify your prediction... with the general theme of saying "this was a longshot all along!"
If it was a longshot... why did you lay (-145)?
A bet is a bet, and nobody wins them all. But your previous post was designed to "excuse" your loss as something that was always a longshot... but both you and the media sold it like a sure thing.
You can't have it both ways!
The Dude imbibes
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
I'm trying to understand what the fascination is with chalk or + money on this site as though it can never be laid.
Whoa there buddy! I never said anything remotely like that... don't try to spin this with your bullsh!t!
You quoted a bunch of statistics that were meant to justify your prediction... with the general theme of saying "this was a longshot all along!"
If it was a longshot... why did you lay (-145)?
A bet is a bet, and nobody wins them all. But your previous post was designed to "excuse" your loss as something that was always a longshot... but both you and the media sold it like a sure thing.
From your original post on this thread. You may have never said "sure thing"... but your analysis of this wager was pretty clear.
Maybe I am misinterpreting your previous post as a justification of the loss, by pointing out that the GOP usually wins this district by a mile, and only won this time by an inch. In reality, maybe this is just your way of trying to smear the GOP just for the sake of doing so, regardless of your wager. I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, but I suppose they have probably taken this same approach in the wake of the loss.
The Dude imbibes
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Wow is all I have to say about this line.
It is down to a mind-blowing Ossoff -145.
From your original post on this thread. You may have never said "sure thing"... but your analysis of this wager was pretty clear.
Maybe I am misinterpreting your previous post as a justification of the loss, by pointing out that the GOP usually wins this district by a mile, and only won this time by an inch. In reality, maybe this is just your way of trying to smear the GOP just for the sake of doing so, regardless of your wager. I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, but I suppose they have probably taken this same approach in the wake of the loss.
Rachel Maddow did on msnbc goes as far as to say weather could have had impact on turn out. what she failed to mention is early voting results put Ossoff ahead by a few thousand.
when the time came to actually vote in a real vointng day Democratic supporters turned into being
"fair weather friends" 1 i believe i did point out where the democrats would take this when they lost as well, the district was not won by a democrat since Carter.
but not to worry Emporeress Nancy and her apprentice DNC Chair Perez and their fund raising machine will be hard at work. I am sure they will not disappoint and a historic money will be squandered in the off cycle election of 2018.
maybe we could categorize what a billion and a half could actually do in some of the urban areas they so called supporters come from, a billion could help fund 1000 schools with a half a million a pc. rebuild 500 vacant properties at another 500,000 renovations to house the homeless. provide elderly services 141 counties a full meals on wheels program and still have about 100,000 million to spare and that sum was dumped into Hillary alone.
50 million in Atlanta revitalization of projects could fund carters habitat for humanity almost perpetually see avatar. a half million could propel space x to permanent lunar colony. but 2 billion can not get Hillary Clinton Elected even if she was running against Trump. so why not a three peat with three billion. i am sure mainstream media would not object to running more commercials .
1my words.
0
Rachel Maddow did on msnbc goes as far as to say weather could have had impact on turn out. what she failed to mention is early voting results put Ossoff ahead by a few thousand.
when the time came to actually vote in a real vointng day Democratic supporters turned into being
"fair weather friends" 1 i believe i did point out where the democrats would take this when they lost as well, the district was not won by a democrat since Carter.
but not to worry Emporeress Nancy and her apprentice DNC Chair Perez and their fund raising machine will be hard at work. I am sure they will not disappoint and a historic money will be squandered in the off cycle election of 2018.
maybe we could categorize what a billion and a half could actually do in some of the urban areas they so called supporters come from, a billion could help fund 1000 schools with a half a million a pc. rebuild 500 vacant properties at another 500,000 renovations to house the homeless. provide elderly services 141 counties a full meals on wheels program and still have about 100,000 million to spare and that sum was dumped into Hillary alone.
50 million in Atlanta revitalization of projects could fund carters habitat for humanity almost perpetually see avatar. a half million could propel space x to permanent lunar colony. but 2 billion can not get Hillary Clinton Elected even if she was running against Trump. so why not a three peat with three billion. i am sure mainstream media would not object to running more commercials .
And every time you Trumpettes type MSM, you make the world of libs keel over with laughter.
Group up. That never was an abbreviation to begin with. Type out the words if you want to say it. It exemplifies the laziness your party allegedly despises. You say it SO much, you had to abbreviate it. It's pathetic.
so it's ok for you to type 'libs', and you're a HUGE baby when someone says MSM? I'm assuming you meant to type GROW up. so what kind of grown up hits submit with that kind of idiotic baby nonsense? don't even vote or reproduce
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
And every time you Trumpettes type MSM, you make the world of libs keel over with laughter.
Group up. That never was an abbreviation to begin with. Type out the words if you want to say it. It exemplifies the laziness your party allegedly despises. You say it SO much, you had to abbreviate it. It's pathetic.
so it's ok for you to type 'libs', and you're a HUGE baby when someone says MSM? I'm assuming you meant to type GROW up. so what kind of grown up hits submit with that kind of idiotic baby nonsense? don't even vote or reproduce
Trump is about to hit a series of successes in a row. The wall is going to start, the VA is going to be fixed, tax reform passes, unemployment to drop, obamacare repealed, the Russia hoax will come to an end, and the Supreme Court will rule the travel ban legal. It’s about to get worse for democrats.
Great predictions so far just 2 days later...Were you reading a crystal ball or just sensing the "upcoming realities?"
0
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:
Trump is about to hit a series of successes in a row. The wall is going to start, the VA is going to be fixed, tax reform passes, unemployment to drop, obamacare repealed, the Russia hoax will come to an end, and the Supreme Court will rule the travel ban legal. It’s about to get worse for democrats.
Great predictions so far just 2 days later...Were you reading a crystal ball or just sensing the "upcoming realities?"
this like watching the Washington Generals vs The Harlem globtrotters under the current systematic democratic process Nancy took the gavel with a 33 seat lead after 11 years she has led the party to a 40 plus set deficit........ 77 seat change from blue to red in the house.... maybe the democratioc party might start thinking of a bit more centrist to the parties goals. they always claim they had a big tent, with all the money pouring into ads that is still true but their a lot of empty seats. A non democrat almost won the nomination.....
Bernie Sanders is still listed as a Independent. could you actual stop blaming Trump for this fact and stared at the fact DNC chair perez is being BOOOED at a democratic rally.
0
this like watching the Washington Generals vs The Harlem globtrotters under the current systematic democratic process Nancy took the gavel with a 33 seat lead after 11 years she has led the party to a 40 plus set deficit........ 77 seat change from blue to red in the house.... maybe the democratioc party might start thinking of a bit more centrist to the parties goals. they always claim they had a big tent, with all the money pouring into ads that is still true but their a lot of empty seats. A non democrat almost won the nomination.....
Bernie Sanders is still listed as a Independent. could you actual stop blaming Trump for this fact and stared at the fact DNC chair perez is being BOOOED at a democratic rally.
Great predictions so far just 2 days later...Were you reading a crystal ball or just sensing the "upcoming realities?"
Lol. The Supreme Court victory was easy to predict. Once I saw Breaking News: The Supreme Court to review travel ban. I knew real judges were going to rule in the president’s favor. The law that the president is using isn’t very complicated. It’s in plain English.
The Russia hoax will come to an end soon as well. I’m predicting within the next few months. I’m surprised it hasn’t ended already. No way the investigation isn’t over before the New Year.
Trump will start the New Year with a Supreme Court victory and celebrate the end of the Russia hoax for sure. I’m quite positive. He’s probably going to have a celebration rally near the border to celebrate his victories and to commemorate the start of the border wall construction.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Crusher13:
Great predictions so far just 2 days later...Were you reading a crystal ball or just sensing the "upcoming realities?"
Lol. The Supreme Court victory was easy to predict. Once I saw Breaking News: The Supreme Court to review travel ban. I knew real judges were going to rule in the president’s favor. The law that the president is using isn’t very complicated. It’s in plain English.
The Russia hoax will come to an end soon as well. I’m predicting within the next few months. I’m surprised it hasn’t ended already. No way the investigation isn’t over before the New Year.
Trump will start the New Year with a Supreme Court victory and celebrate the end of the Russia hoax for sure. I’m quite positive. He’s probably going to have a celebration rally near the border to celebrate his victories and to commemorate the start of the border wall construction.
so it's ok for you to type 'libs', and you're a HUGE baby when someone says MSM? I'm assuming you meant to type GROW up. so what kind of grown up hits submit with that kind of idiotic baby nonsense? don't even vote or reproduce
Yeah, it's ok for me to type 'libs'. If you didn't guess (which would be mind-blowing but not surprising given the posters and the level of intellect here), I am one. I think that gives me a little leeway to call the voters I vote with whatever the fu** I please.
So yo
It's called auto-spell check you dumba**. Or do you still have a flip phone???
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hawky:
so it's ok for you to type 'libs', and you're a HUGE baby when someone says MSM? I'm assuming you meant to type GROW up. so what kind of grown up hits submit with that kind of idiotic baby nonsense? don't even vote or reproduce
Yeah, it's ok for me to type 'libs'. If you didn't guess (which would be mind-blowing but not surprising given the posters and the level of intellect here), I am one. I think that gives me a little leeway to call the voters I vote with whatever the fu** I please.
So yo
It's called auto-spell check you dumba**. Or do you still have a flip phone???
Your ability to make a putz out of yourself is never ending
Wait a minute...
You're actually comparing a handicapping term (ML, which stands for money line) to the sophomoric and infantile hich only became sheik and really caught fire as an abbreviation after the worst President in our country's history started calling every news broadcast criticizing him "Fake News" which has become the most asinine two words in the English lexicon.
Tell me again you are comparing ML to MSM and the revolution of those two abbreviations.
Tell me again you are doing that.
Of course, you'll have to double down on it like the dumbas* in the White House. Lie your As* off and run with it.
Wow Hugh...a 53 year old man who is a father who doesn't see the difference between the distinction being made between two abbreviations because well an abbreviation is just an abbreviation after all. There is no nuance in anything. Wow. A 53 year old man...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
"MSM" is not ok
"ML" is ok.
Is ok, ok?
Your ability to make a putz out of yourself is never ending
Wait a minute...
You're actually comparing a handicapping term (ML, which stands for money line) to the sophomoric and infantile hich only became sheik and really caught fire as an abbreviation after the worst President in our country's history started calling every news broadcast criticizing him "Fake News" which has become the most asinine two words in the English lexicon.
Tell me again you are comparing ML to MSM and the revolution of those two abbreviations.
Tell me again you are doing that.
Of course, you'll have to double down on it like the dumbas* in the White House. Lie your As* off and run with it.
Wow Hugh...a 53 year old man who is a father who doesn't see the difference between the distinction being made between two abbreviations because well an abbreviation is just an abbreviation after all. There is no nuance in anything. Wow. A 53 year old man...
so it's ok for you to type 'libs', and you're a HUGE baby when someone says MSM? I'm assuming you meant to type GROW up. so what kind of grown up hits submit with that kind of idiotic baby nonsense? don't even vote or reproduce
Another grammar troll...Because that is all they have. Attack grammar and abbreviations, not content.
I can type 'libs'. I am one you dumb shi*. Yes, it's ok for me to call myself a lib. You can call your pack of swine anything you want as well. See what I care.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hawky:
so it's ok for you to type 'libs', and you're a HUGE baby when someone says MSM? I'm assuming you meant to type GROW up. so what kind of grown up hits submit with that kind of idiotic baby nonsense? don't even vote or reproduce
Another grammar troll...Because that is all they have. Attack grammar and abbreviations, not content.
I can type 'libs'. I am one you dumb shi*. Yes, it's ok for me to call myself a lib. You can call your pack of swine anything you want as well. See what I care.
Scal getting made to look like a fool in this. Wow.
Do you honestly think anyone here has made a fool of me?
Honestly?
I can cap the shi* out of anything and 99% of the posters deriding me cap NOTHING. They contribute NOTHING. They don't win and they don't lose because they NEVER put their neck on the line. All because of inability and fear.
Rethink who the fool(s) is/are here...
0
Quote Originally Posted by wmi799:
Scal getting made to look like a fool in this. Wow.
Do you honestly think anyone here has made a fool of me?
Honestly?
I can cap the shi* out of anything and 99% of the posters deriding me cap NOTHING. They contribute NOTHING. They don't win and they don't lose because they NEVER put their neck on the line. All because of inability and fear.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
