Coincidentally...

Dungheap said:
So, this right-wing hit piece refers to things that actually happened so all the bullshit innuendo therein is therefore 100% accurate and not bullshit innuendo? Riiiiiight.

Also, too, here's a tip, SF: You should read a newspaper (any newspaper), not just the daily opinion columns posted on RCP.
Click to expand...

LMAO... so let me guess, you will ignore the pieces from CNN, CBS etc.. and pretend it is all from daily opinion columns. Once again you attack the source and ignore the content. Standard parrot actions. Go get your cracker.... tell them I said you get two today.
 
Thing1 said:
The bolded is serious, unmitigated irony, considering the OP.
Click to expand...

You once again refuse to address the content and continue with your silly little attacks? Don't be like Dung. Think for yourself. Try and discuss the CONTENT. Again... are you capable of that or are you too afraid?
 
Superfreak said:
This is a political message board. A discussion of the content is typically what is looked for. But those on the left refuse to discuss, they instead are fixated on attacking the source. You claim it was all just innuendo, when in reality they are quite accurate.

Which do you think in the first quote box are not correct?

In the second quote box, it was questions the author thinks we should be asking... does it frighten you that people would ask such questions? Do you think we shouldn't be asking them?
Click to expand...

Start here Thing... can you address the questions or not?
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... so let me guess, you will ignore the pieces from CNN, CBS etc.. and pretend it is all from daily opinion columns. Once again you attack the source and ignore the content. Standard parrot actions. Go get your cracker.... tell them I said you get two today.
Click to expand...


I'm not disputing the fact. I'm disputing the "coincidentally" and other clap trap, which is your basic right-wing nonsense that no one gives a shit about except hardcore right-wingers.
 
Superfreak said:
You once again refuse to address the content and continue with your silly little attacks? Don't be like Dung. Think for yourself. Try and discuss the CONTENT. Again... are you capable of that or are you too afraid?
Click to expand...

I love the "too afraid." You're a hack. What am I supposed to address? He lists things that have been stories since the election - spot on! - but some of these were also known prior to the election. The main point of the article is clear; this wasn't "coincidence" at all, but conspiracy! scandal! lies!

I'd say "you're better than that," but you don't be able to discern that what you posted in the OP is pure partisan BS. He offers no "proof" that this was part of some coordinated strategy to keep everything hidden until the election was over. Just his own warped hackery about what he wants to believe.

I guess my only "fear" about that is that mindless Republicans and irresponsible news networks will continue that kind of innuendo campaign until they have effectively made it the truth in the American consciousness, as has been done so many times in the past.
 
Dungheap said:
What I like best about the whole "coincidentally" thing is the idea implicit behind it: that Romney might have won if only. It's awesome.
Click to expand...

Letting your imagination get the best of you sonny....Romney never had much of a chance...Obama could choke his chicken on Wall Street and the
votes wouldn't have changed much.....besides, the media would have ignored it just in case.
 
bravo said:
Then just start at the top and refute them one by one....
Click to expand...

Sure thing - right after you write me a 5 page essay on how changing demographics in the swing states affected the 2012 election. No double-spacing, either.

Why are people talking about the OP as thought it's a list of "facts" that need to be disputed? The problem with the OP is the "coincidentally" innuendo, which implies a coordinated effort to withhold information from the media prior to election day. For which there are no facts or proof.
 
Thing1 said:
Sure thing - right after you write me a 5 page essay on how changing demographics in the swing states affected the 2012 election. No double-spacing, either.

Why are people talking about the OP as thought it's a list of "facts" that need to be disputed? The problem with the OP is the "coincidentally" innuendo, which implies a coordinated effort to withhold information from the media prior to election day. For which there are no facts or proof.
Click to expand...


I thought so.....just another bonehead that can't refute the op so you blabber, bluster, and blow smoke....thanks for proving me right again.
 
Dungheap said:
What I like best about you, SF, is the fact that you gleefully regurgitate GOP bullshit and then call anyone who laughs at it a parrot. Self-awareness is not your strong suit.
Click to expand...

you got owned a few posts down, dumbass. If you pulled your head out of your ass a for a second you'd understand you suffer from confirmation bias
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top