Merged Project Veritas strikes again / More evidence...

[logger]

What, said things they don't like. Ooh, their poor feels.



Here logger admits that he is perfectly fine with his Fuhrer having protesters assaulted. And he says Democrats are bad people.

Your comprehension is lacking, yes I'm perfectly fine with Trump supporters defending themselves. I never said dems were bad people, losers, but not bad people.

 

[Tony Stark]

Your facts, as usual on the side of the losers who should be investigated.

Real actual facts. I know you Republicans don't care about them.

Too bad he got caught, would have made a great video.

Here logger admits he has no problem with a fraudster trying to wiretap a US Senator's office. As long as it is a right winger doing it to a Democrat of course. And he pretends that Democrats are the bad people.

 

[Spindrift]

Trump's charity isn't supposed to be giving any money to political organizations. Project Veritas isn't a charity.

Not being a charity doesn't seem to be an issue for Trump's charity.

 

[Tony Stark]

Your comprehension is lacking, yes I'm perfectly fine with Trump supporters defending themselves.

Here logger argues that his Fuhrer directing his followers to assault protesters is self defense.

. I never said dems were bad people, losers, but not bad people.

Now logger is pretending he didn't say something he clearly did:

I . The left is made up of immoral corrupt people who get a kick out of being ********.

 

[Loss Leader]

Please remember to avoid personalization. Rules 0 and 12 apply here and further mod action may be taken if necessary. Whatever your political affiliation, you must still treat other members civilly.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Are you actually wanting me to provide evidence of something that you wrote?

If so, then I guess with your keen eye for detail you missed the part where you were the one who wrote the post which lionized Pravda.

As me, I already referred to this brilliant posting of yours in Post #57.

As someone has already pointed out, I have never posted anything pertaining to "Pravda," ever. Nothing! Not an article, not a comment, virtually nothing.

What I did post was an article from a European and Russian tabloid, a publication that is comparable to our very own National Enquirer -- "Komsomolskaya Pravda."

I also posted the tabloids circulation statistics. That's it!

And from that, and that alone, you have accused me of "lionizing Pravda", which is a completely different publication; with different owners, different editor, different writers, etc.

You certainly have a vivid and wild-eyed imagination.

 

[Belz...]

I certainly don't know what else to say. If you can't see she got let off because of who she is, nothing will convince you.

Based on what? What is your evidence that she deserved to be convicted but wasn't? So far all you have is your own contention that this is the case.

"If you don't already agree with me, I won't make an effort to convince you" sounds more like echo chamber rhetoric than skeptical thinking.

 

[Belz...]

Only people willing to go along with the deception and agitation need the connection made

And again you imply that solid evidence is not important. You think your guts can tell you the answer. That is a dangerous way of thinking that was rightly discarded when we developed science.

intelligence guided by experience tells you what's going on here

Those are nice words but they still sound a lot like "gut feeling" to me.

 

[Crossbow]

As someone has already pointed out, I have never posted anything pertaining to "Pravda," ever. Nothing! Not an article, not a comment, virtually nothing.

What I did post was an article from a European and Russian tabloid, a publication that is comparable to our very own National Enquirer -- "Komsomolskaya Pravda."

I also posted the tabloids circulation statistics. That's it!

And from that, and that alone, you have accused me of "lionizing Pravda", which is a completely different publication; with different owners, different editor, different writers, etc.

You certainly have a vivid and wild-eyed imagination.

Fine.

If you actually want me to make such a correction, then I will be glad to provide the correction that you want ...

'Slings and Arrows' once lionized a publication called "Komsomolskaya Pravda" which is the equivalent of the "National Enquirer" here in the USA simply because "Komsomolskaya Pravda" contained an anti-Clinton that he wished to give credence to.

As for me, I would say that it quite foolish for one to give credence to either publication considering what these publications are regardless of what the publications may have to say about any issue. However, there are some posters who will cite and lionize any publication simply because that publication happens to publish something that they want to believe in.

I do hope that this message is quite helpful.

 

[Crossbow]

Your comprehension is lacking, yes I'm perfectly fine with Trump supporters defending themselves. I never said dems were bad people, losers, but not bad people.

Wow! How incredibly wrong.

'logger' has often said that Democrats are bad people. Just see my tag line for just one of those times.

 

[Meadmaker]

It looks like the Project Veritas videos have sparked at least one review/investigation, by the Repubican Attorney General of Wisconsin.


http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/voter...-department-of-justice-project-veritas-video/


Good. Those videos allege some pretty serious crimes have occurred. Someone should be looking into this. I just hope they can get to the rest of the videos to give some context to the statements.

 

[logger]

Wow! How incredibly wrong.

'logger' has often said that Democrats are bad people. Just see my tag line for just one of those times.

Your tag line shows where i say dems are bad people?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yes, it does. Sophistry and weaseling will not help you on this one.

 

[logger]

Yes, it does. Sophistry and weaseling will not help you on this one.

Ahh I see you get it now, I wonder if the other leftists get it. It's interesting to watch you make leaps without having to have actual proof.

So you do have a little experience guided by intelligence and you can make some assumptions by what people say and do?

But can you make the leap that says this hillary clinton sure seems corrupt and filthy? She sure seems to be involved in many shady things? Or are you and the other leftists going to willingly suspend your intelligence so you can have your corrupt candidate?

Once again, Trump is a jerk, but he isn't evil like the Clintons. I'll come back to this before the election as more terrible things come out about her.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The "corrupt" and "filthy" things are all in the pornographic imagination of the idiots who continue to assert these falsehoods.

Go ahead, list your little Benghazi and email frippery. Get it over with so we can move on.

 

[varwoche]

You may not know how big a liar hillary is since you're left and a foreigner. Trumps supposed lies are lies to the liberal mind, many are simply policy differences are considered lies to the left. He even may be WRONG about some things and that is also considered lies to the corrupt filthy left.

Hillary has been a known liar for decades, the polls show her biggest weakness is TRUST.

I have a proposal logger. Instead of trading empty barbs, how about we meticulously pick through the third debate, and tally up the lies. If you're game, I'll start a thread -- just give the word.

 

[Garrison]

Ahh I see you get it now, I wonder if the other leftists get it. It's interesting to watch you make leaps without having to have actual proof.

So you do have a little experience guided by intelligence and you can make some assumptions by what people say and do?

Yes, that's why we know Trump is a dangerous buffoon utterly unqualified for the post of Commander in Chief and that Clinton is going to be President Elect come November 9th.

But can you make the leap that says this hillary clinton sure seems corrupt and filthy? She sure seems to be involved in many shady things? Or are you and the other leftists going to willingly suspend your intelligence so you can have your corrupt candidate?

Please try and understand, how things 'seem' to you is irrelevant, any shred of proof she's done something wrong would be nice.

Once again, Trump is a jerk, but he isn't evil like the Clintons. I'll come back to this before the election as more if any terrible things come out about her.

FTFY because to date you've come up with zilch, zero.

 

[Meadmaker]

Once again, Trump is a jerk, but he isn't evil like the Clintons.

True. He's evil in a completely different way.

A couple of weeks ago I told someone I feel like this year I have a choice between Nixon and Moussolini. I'm voting for Nixon.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I have a proposal logger. Instead of trading empty barbs, how about we meticulously pick through the third debate, and tally up the lies. If you're game, I'll start a thread -- just give the word.

That's not fair if sunmaster's not here to apply his non-partisan scoring system.

Here's how that works for those of you who insist on using the old black/white true or false system.

Old-school scoring:

"I spoke indirectly and directly with President Putin, who could not have been nicer...And I got to know him very well"
0 points for truthfullness. He never spoke to Putin, never met him and did not get to know him very well.

Now for the patented sunmaster Accuracy By Need To Score Points system:

"I spoke¹, indirectly² and directly with President³ Putin, who could not have been nicer⁴... and I got⁵ to know him very well."
1. He does speak, quite often. 1 point.
2. Indirectly, through Parade Magazine articles and cites on RT. Putin can read, you know. Not all diplomacy is through formal channels. 1 point.
3. What, are you denying that Putin is the President. 1 point.
4. Western bias. Putin can be nice, I'm sure. In recent polls 82% of the Russian public likes him. 1 point.
5. He obviously meant to say, "I've got to know him very well." Which is important if he wins the presidency. 1 point.

Overall, five points for truthiness, compared to the liberal score which ignores the things he got right. Plus they leave out important text before and after the statement. He opened, for instance, with "Good evening, it's wonderful to be here in Boheekusville." It was evening, he was in Boheekusville. 2 more points of accuracy that the biased liberal fact-checkers overlook.

 

[Aepervius]

Yes because he isn't vastly more dishonest, he's a saint compared to her. Her entire political career is made up with lies upon lies.

Independent fact checking shows trump has given more misleading statement or lie than trump.