Spies Who Lie for the DNC
-
@raphjd : This conversation would go ever so much better if you had actually read that letter and were able to cite from it. Free clue: your paraphrasing of their letter is ... creative ... It is most definitely not what they actually said.
Similarly, the conversation would also go better if you would actually read what I write and respond accordingly. Another free clue: I did not write anything that even remotely resembled, "Ok, so everyone except the 51 'intel experts' is lying about Russian collusion and Hunter's laptop."
See above, where I pointed out that you're just making up shit. Thank you for so quickly proving my point.
Oh, and for the record, you should also learn the difference between "Hunter Biden's laptop" and "Hunter Biden's emails." Some of the latter have been confirmed; the former has not. Hence, the weasel wording of both the New York Post and the New York Times in their respective articles.
But hey, if it makes you feel better, I promise to refrain from voting for Hunter Biden in the next election.
-
I love the mental gymnastics you guys need to use to justify defending those who lie for the DNC.
-
@raphjd : I love the mental gymnastics you need to use to justify making shit up. And how you are completely unable to defend your own assertions when you get caught making shit up.
Still waiting for you to read the letter and point to a single lie contained therein. So far, you haven't been able to come up with a single one, despite being challenged repeatedly to do so.
Also still waiting for you to defend these silly assertions:
These "intel experts" lied about Russian collusion, Hunter's laptop, and many other things.
51 "intel experts" love to go on TV (and the press) and lie to everyone on whatever the DNC wants them to.
They lied about Russian collusion and they lied about Hunter's laptop.
There will never be a court case, thanks to the deep state.
the emails prove his dad is dirty as fuck.
You can't, of course, so you will continue to play these silly games, evade, and attack rather than admit that, once again, you got caught out.
Even for you, this was a pathetic response. You really need to up your game, as this is just too easy. And boring.
-
Don't feel too bad about failing to identify a single lie in the letter those experts signed. The New York Post couldn't find any, either, despite their prominent headline.
That was one of two things that immediately leaped to my attention when I read the Post story, that and the fact that they didn't link to the letter. If you're going to put in large type on the front page that you're talking about "SPIES WHO LIE," it behooves you to actually come up with a lie. The Post couldn't. And they counted on useful idiots like you to overlook that fact, which you promptly did.
-
Are you denying that they are the same ones that went on liberal media claiming they had proof of Trump colluding with Russia, only to say the opposite in Shifty Schiff's secret hearing in the bunking, which has since been declassified?
Within 5 days of the story breaking about Hunter's laptop, the same "intel experts" wrote a trying to discredit it. That is extremely quick, for them to have looked into it.
-
Your beloved Great Uncle used his political influence and position to the benefit of Hunter.
Biden brought Hunter on AF2 so Hunter could do business in China.
Biden used tax dollars to threaten Ukraine, in order to protect Hunter.
-
@NF16 said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
Edited to add that since the minutes I've spent on this are already way more time than it deserves and since you are incapable of any kind of rational discussion on this, or any other, matter, I'll once again depart from the thread. Feel free to toss your usual attacks my way. I'm sure it will make you feel all smug and virtuous.
No wonder you are trying to claim they didn't lie.
-
Factually incorrect that other networks have gone before courts and stated that 'no part of what our anchor fluzzy says should be taken seriously'.
That usual slippery grasp of reality you have going on.
-
True that not all have, but others have, including Rachel "Mad Cow" Maddow.
CNN is frequently caught in lies, as is the rest of the liberal media.
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
No wonder you are trying to claim they didn't lie.
LOL.... Still waiting for you to find a single lie that they wrote in that letter. I suspect I'll be waiting a very, very long time. I'm not holding my breath.
Are you denying that they are the same ones that went on liberal media claiming they had proof of Trump colluding with Russia, only to say the opposite in Shifty Schiff's secret hearing in the bunking, which has since been declassified?
Yes, dear, I am denying that, since it happens to be a completely unsupported accusation, not to mention more than a little unhinged. Do keep in mind, by the way, that we're talking about the New York Post story, remember? You do keep trying to change the subject for some reason.
Within 5 days of the story breaking about Hunter's laptop, the same "intel experts" wrote a trying to discredit it. That is extremely quick, for them to have looked into it.
And yet, dear, you are completely unable to find a single fault, much less a single lie, in the letter they wrote. You did read the letter, right? Right?
Once you do manage to do so, perhaps you could reach out to the New York Post, since they seem to be having some trouble there, as well. Oh, and we're still waiting for you to defend these silly assertions:
These "intel experts" lied about Russian collusion, Hunter's laptop, and many other things.
51 "intel experts" love to go on TV (and the press) and lie to everyone on whatever the DNC wants them to.
They lied about Russian collusion and they lied about Hunter's laptop.
There will never be a court case, thanks to the deep state.
the emails prove his dad is dirty as fuck.
We can add these to the list, as well:
Your beloved Great Uncle used his political influence and position to the benefit of Hunter.
Biden used tax dollars to threaten Ukraine, in order to protect Hunter.
You do understand that this isn't a site like Breitbart or RedState or HotAir or GatewayPundit or whatever cesspool you regularly frequent. We ask for evidence here, evidence that you, so far, have not provided, mostly because it doesn't exist.
-
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.
-
Wait, so if it's anti-Trump, no evidence is needed, but if it is bad for the DNC, then absolute proof is needed.
That says everything about your clowns.
-
@raphjd said in Spies Who Lie for the DNC:
Wait, so if it's anti-Trump, no evidence is needed, but if it is bad for the DNC, then absolute proof is needed.
There you go again, dear. Since nothing I wrote even remotely resembles that remark, I'm going to have to just point out that, again, you're randomly making up shit rather than reading what I wrote and responding to that.
Free clue, dear: you made the claim; it is up to you to back it up. You cannot, of course, so you will continue to play these silly games.
-
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?]
