Jump to content

More Looniness exposed.


Guest 2smart4u
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 2smart4u

The FBI just broke up a terrorist group in NYC that was characterized as the real deal and very dangerous. The leftist media may not have mentioned this,

so I will. This group was uncovered by the use of WIRETAPS.

Remember the Loonies on KOTW and elsewhere last year were screaming about Bush allowing these wiretaps, it was such an infringement on civil rights. Now it's realized that Bush was right and wiretaps are saving American lives.

Thank God there was a Republican in office on 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI just broke up a terrorist group in NYC that was characterized as the real deal and very dangerous. The leftist media may not have mentioned this,

so I will. This group was uncovered by the use of WIRETAPS.

Remember the Loonies on KOTW and elsewhere last year were screaming about Bush allowing these wiretaps, it was such an infringement on civil rights. Now it's realized that Bush was right and wiretaps are saving American lives.

Thank God there was a Republican in office on 9/11.

Did they have a warrant? Oh, and your a di**head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI just broke up a terrorist group in NYC that was characterized as the real deal and very dangerous. The leftist media may not have mentioned this,

so I will. This group was uncovered by the use of WIRETAPS.

Remember the Loonies on KOTW and elsewhere last year were screaming about Bush allowing these wiretaps, it was such an infringement on civil rights. Now it's realized that Bush was right and wiretaps are saving American lives.

Thank God there was a Republican in office on 9/11.

As Keith correctly points out, minus the name-calling, your posts are not helpful because you consistently make claims without providing reliable links to support them.

There are only three possibilities.

You may be incapable of finding and posting links. If that is the case, then you should admit it.

Or you may be unconcerned with the truth, which we already know to be true because of other things you have written and not written. On the latter front, you have been called to account many times but have never admitted a single one of your many mistakes. This does not lend support to your credibility.

The third possibility is that you did the research but for reasons of your own decline to provide a link. If you have done that, you should at least explain your reasoning.

The claim you just posted may or may not be true and may or may not be distorted. The question I have to ask myself is whether it's worth my time to do the research myself.

I truly don't understand why you do not provide links to support your claims. Please explain. Or better yet, post reliable links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they have a warrant? Oh, and your a di**head.

I'm sure they did.

Hey "2smart," - it's warrant-less wiretapping that is a problem. For all your talk about individual rights, I thought you would have known that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
As Keith correctly points out, minus the name-calling, your posts are not helpful because you consistently make claims without providing reliable links to support them.

There are only three possibilities.

You may be incapable of finding and posting links. If that is the case, then you should admit it.

Or you may be unconcerned with the truth, which we already know to be true because of other things you have written and not written. On the latter front, you have been called to account many times but have never admitted a single one of your many mistakes. This does not lend support to your credibility.

The third possibility is that you did the research but for reasons of your own decline to provide a link. If you have done that, you should at least explain your reasoning.

The claim you just posted may or may not be true and may or may not be distorted. The question I have to ask myself is whether it's worth my time to do the research myself.

I truly don't understand why you do not provide links to support your claims. Please explain. Or better yet, post reliable links.

You're right, I could provide the links to my postings ......or, you could see the news first hand on FOX. Turn off the leftist propaganda you're getting on

MSNBC and tune into Fair and Balanced, then you won't need links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, I could provide the links to my postings ......or, you could see the news first hand on FOX. Turn off the leftist propaganda you're getting on

MSNBC and tune into Fair and Balanced, then you won't need links.

Nice try. But Fox News is not to blame for all of your lies. According to a post from you, Obama's approval rating was "38% and dropping". According to Fox News at the time, it was 53%. You later revised that up to 43%, but Fox's polling was above 50% (and still is, currently 54%). The reason that you don't back up your claims is that you are a habitual liar and an uncritical believer in anything that suits your biases, no matter how suspicious the claim or how untrustworthy the source.

I suspect that on those occasions when you do post something that turns out to be true, it is for much the same reason that a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day. You post them not because they are true (I doubt you ever check), but for the same reason as all of the other things that you post. Because they suit your biases.

Like an astrologer or a fortune teller, even when you're right, it's for wrong reasons. And even then it is misused for dishonest and dishonorable purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, I could provide the links to my postings ......or, you could see the news first hand on FOX. Turn off the leftist propaganda you're getting on MSNBC and tune into Fair and Balanced, then you won't need links.

Yep, that explains it.

You see, idiot, we asked for credible links. Fox wouldn't qualify.

So idiot, doesn't it occur to you, after you've been called out on lie after lie, that you are trusting an unreliable source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI just broke up a terrorist group in NYC that was characterized as the real deal and very dangerous. The leftist media may not have mentioned this,

so I will. This group was uncovered by the use of WIRETAPS.

Remember the Loonies on KOTW and elsewhere last year were screaming about Bush allowing these wiretaps, it was such an infringement on civil rights. Now it's realized that Bush was right and wiretaps are saving American lives.

Thank God there was a Republican in office on 9/11.

The wiretaps were properly authorized by a court warrant. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2...m_alqaeda_.html

The difference between this situation and 9/11 is that under Obama, the terrorists were stopped and apprehended. George Bush just let us be attacked.

Thank God Obama is in office. He kept us safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Keith correctly points out, minus the name-calling, your posts are not helpful because you consistently make claims without providing reliable links to support them.

There are only three possibilities.

You may be incapable of finding and posting links. If that is the case, then you should admit it.

Or you may be unconcerned with the truth, which we already know to be true because of other things you have written and not written. On the latter front, you have been called to account many times but have never admitted a single one of your many mistakes. This does not lend support to your credibility.

The third possibility is that you did the research but for reasons of your own decline to provide a link. If you have done that, you should at least explain your reasoning.

The claim you just posted may or may not be true and may or may not be distorted. The question I have to ask myself is whether it's worth my time to do the research myself.

I truly don't understand why you do not provide links to support your claims. Please explain. Or better yet, post reliable links.

Look who is calling the kettle black? What good did your post just prove. Like many did with your son's dumb responses if you just ignore someone long enough, they will go away. The same be said about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look who is calling the kettle black? What good did your post just prove. Like many did with your son's dumb responses if you just ignore someone long enough, they will go away. The same be said about you.

To answer your question directly, the point of my post was to invite the person to discuss the issues thoughtfully and to provide links to support his claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...