Spies Who Lie for the DNC
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
I said what I said
Yes you did, dear; you just didn't say what you meant by it. "Bye bye" is such an ambiguous phrase; you can hardly blame me for pointing that out.
If you demand absolute proof from me, then you must be held to the same exacting standards.
Dear me, that still sounds terribly threatening. I'll be sure to keep that in mind going forward.
In the meantime, perhaps you could begin with upholding those standards that you intend to rigidly enforce in my case and provide that "absolute proof" here for those many claims you have been making, the evidence for which is still missing. You wouldn't want to hold me to a standard that you are not prepared to sustain, now would you?
[Notice how quickly the conservative here immediately changed the subject away from his failure to back up his claims?]
-
@bi4smooth said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
I'm afraid you've both made multiple claims
Oh, by all means, feel free to cite any claim I've made. I'm definitely prepared to back up what I write. If you're referring to this thread, though, then I will point out that you cannot "both sides" this. Pointing out that someone else's claim is completely unsupported is not the same thing as making that unsupported claim in the first place. There is no equivalence there.
-
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
NOPE. I don't bow to you.
You just want to play games.ROFL.... Oh, the irony.... And oh, so predictable.
I'll simply continue to note that you have yet again failed to support even a single one of the silly assertions you made in this thread. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Not one shred of verifiable data; not one iota of actual evidence.
You were not able to find a single lie in that letter; you were not able to defend the rest of your somewhat unhinged rants. Instead, you went on the attack and played silly games. Your failure is duly noted.
And with that, I think we're through. I'm quite happy to let your failure speak for itself.
-
Ok, dearie.
We already went over the 51 "intel experts" lying to the American people about Russian collusion. Of course, you believe that Tucker used CGI and set up a fake government website, so it ain't real.
Within 5 days of Hunter's laptop emerging, the same 51 "intel experts" wrote a letter claiming Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation. Sure, they used weasel words, but the intent was to mislead the American public. These 51 proven liars hadn't even seen the laptop, let alone examine it.
Biden is on video bragging about using US tax money to protect Hunter and Burizma.
Biden took Hunter on AF2 with him to China, so Hunter could do business there. The intent was to give the impression that Hunter was an agent of his father, the US VP.
I'm sure there are a couple of other things I said in this thread, but these things are easy to find on the internet.
-
Nope, I'm not, I'm stating it as a fact that no other network has had to go before a court to defend themselves by admitting that nothing that their lead anchor says should be taken seriously.
The way you're so triggered by this fact is highly amusing.
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
Ok, dearie.
We already went over the 51 "intel experts" lying to the American people about Russian collusion. Of course, you believe that Tucker used CGI and set up a fake government website, so it ain't real.
LOL
Within 5 days of Hunter's laptop emerging, the same 51 "intel experts" wrote a letter claiming Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation. Sure, they used weasel words, but the intent was to mislead the American public. These 51 proven liars hadn't even seen the laptop, let alone examine it.
Have you seen the laptop?
Biden is on video bragging about using US tax money to protect Hunter and Burizma.
LOL
Biden took Hunter on AF2 with him to China, so Hunter could do business there. The intent was to give the impression that Hunter was an agent of his father, the US VP.
Golly, if accompanying your parent on their work jet is the metric and bar, we've a lot of questions about Ivanka, Jarred, Donnie Cokehead, and the stupid looking one for every trip they took on AF1.
You ready to answer questions about their dozens of flights, too?
I'm sure there are a couple of other things I said in this thread, but these things are easy to find on the internet.
Ah, yes, "the internet", where I can download men raw dogging each other and I can also find out that the moon landings were a hoax by big metric to stop the US from becoming a normal country with regards to its units of measure.
-
You will use any mental gymnastics to protect Biden and the liberal agenda.
-
You will deflect from your lies nonstop, it's hilarious.
A child would react better to correction than you do.
-
Ok, dearie
-
Good lad!
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
We already went over the 51 "intel experts" lying to the American people about Russian collusion.
No, dear, we didn't. Sorry to disappoint you but you failed on that score, as well, just as you're failing miserably on this one.
Of course, you believe that Tucker used CGI and set up a fake government website, so it ain't real.
There's that making shit up again, dear. You really should work on that, since it never works.
Within 5 days of Hunter's laptop emerging, the same 51 "intel experts" wrote a letter claiming Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.
No, dear, they didn't claim that. You didn't read the letter, did you?
Sure, they used weasel words, but the intent was to mislead the American public.
There's that making shit up again.
These 51 proven liars hadn't even seen the laptop, let alone examine it.
So? That was irrelevant to the point the experts were making. As far as I can tell, nobody has seen the laptop, let alone examined it, mostly because those pushing this story never made the laptop available. And that's assuming that the laptop even exists, which there are multiple reasons to doubt.
Biden is on video bragging about using US tax money to protect Hunter and Burizma.
There's that making shit up again.
Biden took Hunter on AF2 with him to China, so Hunter could do business there. The intent was to give the impression that Hunter was an agent of his father, the US VP.
There's that making shit up again.
I'm sure there are a couple of other things I said in this thread, but these things are easy to find on the internet.
Uh-huh. You struck out on all counts, dear. Not one actual verifiable fact in that entire farrago of nonsense. And you still haven't been able to come up with a single lie in the letter signed by those security experts. Remember that? The topic of this thread?
Better luck next time.
Edited to add that I'm genuinely curious: do you really not get that mindlessly regurgitating your talking points does not in any way actually support them?
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
You will use any mental gymnastics to protect Biden and the liberal agenda.
Oh, the irony... and the projection... and the total lack of self-awareness....
-
-
What this thread reminds me of is the stereotypical turn-of-the-century Englishman in a foreign country who doesn't quite understand that not everyone speaks English. When the native population doesn't understand him, he repeats what he said, only slower and louder, as though that will fix the problem.
It's pretty clear that he doesn't have to defend his posts on the other forums he frequents because everyone there speaks the same language: It's a shared faith and a shared view of the world and everything is black-and-white. A story like this would have everyone nodding in agreement because of course it's true; no questions need to be asked; no skepticism is warranted.
After all, it's obvious that Democrats are liars, that Biden is senile and corrupt, that the Deep State routinely intervenes in political affairs and reporting, that the mainstream media is biased towards liberals and completely untrustworthy, etc. Why is it that we don't get that? How can we not see what is so intuitively obvious? Hence, repeating the same talking points over and over again, getting angrier each time, because the problem must be with us, not with him.
Edited to add this little gem:
You prove why liberals are shite.
Q.E.D. See, the thing is that I, personally, may indeed be "shite" but that "proves" nothing about "liberals." But, to him, because I have dared to question his worldview, dared to insist that he back up his rants with facts, that means that all "liberals are shite" and this has now been "proved." Whereas, in the real world, all that has been proved by my posts in this thread is that I, personally, am somewhat annoying.
-
Well, you are talking nothing but shite, claiming everything that doesn't make the DNC look good is nothing but lies.
Maybe you should go back to beating your little dick to The View.
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
Well, you are talking nothing but shite, claiming everything that doesn't make the DNC look good is nothing but lies.
As I have repeatedly said, this discussion would go ever so much better if you would actually read what I write and respond to that instead of making shit up. You are simply lying and it's not doing you any favors. I have mostly focused on two things in this thread:
-
The claim that those various security experts lied is false. I read the letter in question. Not one statement in that letter is a lie.
-
You have made a number of rather ridiculous assertions in this thread on a variety ot topics. You have supported none of those assertions.
That in no way translates to "everything that doesn't make the DNC look good is nothing but lies." Is reading comprehension always this much trouble for you?
Maybe you should go back to beating your little dick to The View.
Is that really the best you can come up with? I don't have network television and I've never watched the View but whatever helps you make it through the day.
[Still scratching my head over that one... The View? Seriously?]
-
-
Blah, blah, blah
All you do is lie, OR you are just too stupid to look at sources other than The View and Joy "I was hacked" Reid.
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
All you do is lie
I look forward to you providing an example of a lie I've told. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.
-
Blah, blah, blah
Umm, let's start with discussing the 51 "intel experts" lying to the American public about Russian collusion. That was discussed here, in several threads. Just because you were too busy getting your "facts" from Rachel Maddow to participate in that discussion isn't my fault. You could have gone back and looked at that thread, but instead, you want to play your stupid ass games.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login