Fox ignored sicknick yesterday
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Yeah, he's not a liar, is he?
How did you prove me wrong?
I didn't lie to you at all.
But you lied to me.
You just tried to ask a rigged question from a place of dishonesty, which was off-topic.
And, I also said that I thought he committed war crimes. Twice on this thread.
You didn't read those because, as you said before, you don't thoroughly read my posts.
You said you just "skim them".
So the answer to your question is in the thread...you just didn't take the time to read it because you're a sloppy person with no standards or integrity, by your own admission.
The only people there on that side were the Neo-Nazis. They and the ambiguous "preservation society" were the same people.
Of course he was because the only people on that side were Nazis.
No they're not, and even the FBI says so: FBI 'has no intelligence' indicating antifa was linked to weekend violence in the George Floyd protests, despite Drumpf and Republicans' claims
Your very fine people were the ones who committed all the murders and crimes during the Floyd protests.
ALL OF THEM.
You continue to lie about the election being stolen.
Still.
Even three months after, you're still lying about it.
So because you buy into The Big Lie, that means you also support the insurrection which was launched over The Big Lie that you have bought into because you lack good instincts and good intuition.
So you are lying when you say you don't support the insurrection. You must support it if you don't think the election was legitimate, which you have made clear on this thread.
Which I said twice on this thread, that you didn't read because by your own admission, you skim through my posts.
Still waiting for the apology.
and for you to stop lying about me, The election wasn't stolen. I've said that numerous times and have never called it stolen.
you are a dishonest little shit who claims to be smart but clearly is deficient in intellectual prowess.
you minced words and forgot the apology.
you also now need to apologize for the lie that you claimed I said "the election was stolen"....
you are digging a hole, idiot.
Yes you did, when you said there were "discrepancies".
That is you saying you believe the election was stolen.
You can't say it wasn't stolen on the one hand, and then say there were discrepancies on the other.
The discrepancies would mean that it was stolen or rigged, right?
So you're trying to have it both ways because you're too much of a coward to make an honest judgment.
You should apologize for not reading my posts and "skimming them".
But you did when you said there were "discrepancies"...when asked to explain those "discrepancies", you can't and won't.
So that's you saying you believe the election was stolen without overtly saying it.
You say the election wasn't stolen in one breath, then in the other breath allude to "discrepancies".
So about those "discrepancies"...if you're qualifying your statement with that shit, then you're saying that the results of the election are suspect because of "discrepancies", which means you believe it was stolen because of the "discrepancies".
These are YOUR WORDS, my man.
without a proper apology for lying and saying I claimed the election was stolen in regards to john kerry, and admitting john kerry is a war criminal outright, you can simply go fuck yourself.
I said plainly, THREE TIMES, that I thought what Kerry did were war crimes.
THREE TIMES.
So where's your apology to me for skimming my posts and not reading them????
You said that there were "discrepancies".
When asked to explain those, you choked.
So you can't say the election wasn't stolen in one breath, then allude to ambiguous "discrepancies" which would totally affect the election's integrity in the other.
You're trying to have it both ways because you're a coward who doesn't want to accept truth and reality because doing so means your instincts and intuition are shit. And you have great pride in both, don't you? You like to think of yourself as a savvy, intuitive person, don't you?
Well you're not.
How was it a propaganda stunt? It was a memorial. Because it was on TV? Was Princess Di's funeral a propaganda stunt? What about GHW Bush's? Nelson Mandela? Pope John Paul II? Have you decided that it's the political persuasion of the dead person (although I hear rumors that Sicknick might have been conservative) or is it the political implications of the dead person's death that allow you to call a tribute to a hero a propaganda stunt?
he was a hero, how he was exploited is shit. using his death to attack fox news and all republicans is shit.
two officers were shot protecting delay in 1998, no network covered his laying in state as far as my research has shown.
also note, there was no break in on major networks to cover it. are they shits too?
fox is newstainment, as is cnn and msnbc, did bloomberg show it? anyway. using his corpse to attack the other side is shit.
I want you to answer my questions please and not just change the word "propaganda" to "exploited". How was it propaganda? How was he exploited?
Who attacked "all Republicans"?
I don't know what happened in 1998. That seems like a waste of time. I don't even know what whataboutism you would try to make between the two events.
Sure, all the other networks are shit too. Does that make you feel better?
You know as well as I do the point that evince is trying to make. If you don't agree with it, don't, but it's not a good look to call the memorial of a fallen hero a "propaganda stunt" when it was not and you can't defend yourself related to every other memorial/funeral that has ever been televised.
Liar is the best thing they are. They are also many worse things.
I'm referencing what msn said....guess they didn't know....
When did it start?What is the point of this thread?
Why does it matter if fox had it live or not?
and if it was that important why did the networks not break into their normal programming.
because the democrats are using his corpse as a prop.
Your whataboutism is so tiresome and predictable.