Spies Who Lie for the DNC
-
What's funny about this is that I really do think that raphjd didn't read the letter in question. And certainly didn't read the New York Post article with a critical eye. Instead, he blindly assumed that this was the "gotcha" he'd been waiting for, that would allow him to triumph over everyone here and so he rushed here to post this so that we would all have to eat crow.
Instead, alas, he's exposed himself as something of a gullible fool. What's worse for him is that he cannot admit that he was wrong in this case, so he's caught between a rock and a hard place. He can't defend those ridiculous assertions of his and he can't back off of them, either. So he'll continue to dodge, duck, evade, and attack rather than accept reality. Poor guy.
-
Free clue, dear: I will hold you to the exacting standards you demand of others.
If you post one thing without absolute proof, then bye bye.
-
@gerggently said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
Again, no other network has had to go before a court and declare that 'no one should take a single word they say seriously'.
I'm sorry that this reality doesn't comport with your misunderstandings of how things actually work.
Ah, so you are demanding the exact wording.
Gotcha, you petty twit.
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
Free clue, dear: I will hold you to the exacting standards you demand of others.
Whatever you say, dear. Of the two of us, only one of us has a problem with reality and evidence. [Please do spare us the obvious retort; that really would be terribly childish of you.]
If you post one thing without absolute proof, then bye bye.
Oh, dear, that sounds terribly threatening. Are you going to ban me from the forum for the crime of making an unsubstantiated accusation? Will you hold yourself to these same "exacting standards" and "bye bye" yourself, as well?
You can start with this thread, dear, and by finding a single lie in the letter that the New York Post referred to and then by finding the data to back up the rest of your silly assertions that you made here. We'll be right here waiting for you.
-
I said what I said, and @bi4smooth will agree with me.
If you demand absolute proof from me, then you must be held to the same exacting standards.
-
I'm afraid you've both made multiple claims - all without proof (or, at least a reference)... some obviously exaggerated, some questionable, some laughable, and some believable...
-
@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....
-
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