The Latest PR Tactic for the Left.....

[Immanuel]

Good lord! The media is reporting the threats on both those who voted 'yes' and those who voted 'no'.

Well, I guess that makes it true then.

I was right and all of you who bounced all over me about it can eat your own shit. Just sayin'.

I remember reading about this somewhere and it's called the Fine Nine Page Rage. It's when an OP author realizes their initial claim is flat out wrong so they completely change it hoping nobody will notice. Also, it's not really an insult to tell us to eat our own shit because it's always more honest and accurate than anything you put out. Now dance you fuxxing skank, dance.

Whining and name calling doesn't actually deflect from my original comment - that the threats were being made to the GOP as well as the Dems. Eat shit and die, loser. Cuz now the media are reporting it, I'm right and you all are idiots. That you resort to name calling proves my point.

None of you (and I mean left and right) are interested in actual factually accurate information. You just wanna play spiteful games. You're stupid. I'm not. Na na na na na.

I suspect you weren't speaking about me since, I have consistently been saying wait for the proof, but then since I consider myself to be more middle of the road than most, maybe you were not speaking about me.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I remember reading about this somewhere and it's called the Fine Nine Page Rage. It's when an OP author realizes their initial claim is flat out wrong so they completely change it hoping nobody will notice. Also, it's not really an insult to tell us to eat our own shit because it's always more honest and accurate than anything you put out. Now dance you fuxxing skank, dance.

Whining and name calling doesn't actually deflect from my original comment - that the threats were being made to the GOP as well as the Dems. Eat shit and die, loser. Cuz now the media are reporting it, I'm right and you all are idiots. That you resort to name calling proves my point.

None of you (and I mean left and right) are interested in actual factually accurate information. You just wanna play spiteful games. You're stupid. I'm not. Na na na na na.

Do you try to be this fuxxing self defeating? Pay attention you dummass
. Your OP claims PRIOR to the vote the media was silent about threats to those who planned to vote no. You have never supported that clam. Now, AFTER the vote the media is reporting on violence for those who voted yes.

You're now citing actions by the media that have NOTHING to do with your OP claim.....yet you want to point to that as proof you were correct? You're nothing but a far right skank hack jealous that ann coulter is a millionaire for doing what you attempt to do: manipulate.

It is impossible to prove a negative.

If CG is right, then there would be no media reports whatsoever about violence against those who planned to vote no. There would be no documentation. You would have to prove her wrong by showing that there had been. Which if she showed those same links, would prove you to be right instead of her.

I suppose she might be able to find some squawking head that has made the same claim, but is that proof?

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Whining and name calling doesn't actually deflect from my original comment - that the threats were being made to the GOP as well as the Dems. Eat shit and die, loser. Cuz now the media are reporting it, I'm right and you all are idiots. That you resort to name calling proves my point.

None of you (and I mean left and right) are interested in actual factually accurate information. You just wanna play spiteful games. You're stupid. I'm not. Na na na na na.

Do you try to be this fuxxing self defeating? Pay attention you dummass
. Your OP claims PRIOR to the vote the media was silent about threats to those who planned to vote no. You have never supported that clam. Now, AFTER the vote the media is reporting on violence for those who voted yes.

You're now citing actions by the media that have NOTHING to do with your OP claim.....yet you want to point to that as proof you were correct? You're nothing but a far right skank hack jealous that ann coulter is a millionaire for doing what you attempt to do: manipulate.

It is impossible to prove a negative.

If CG is right, then there would be no media reports whatsoever about violence against those who planned to vote no. There would be no documentation. You would have to prove her wrong by showing that there had been. Which if she showed those same links, would prove you to be right instead of her.

I suppose she might be able to find some squawking head that has made the same claim, but is that proof?

Immie

If the msm was failing to report as she claimed then she should have provided evidence in the OP showing local media or other outlets reporting on alleged threats that were not carried by the msm. A few examples of how this is done:

When Fox journalists refused to report false information regarding growth hormones injected into cattle it turned into a big legal battle. Initially the journalists won but then lost on appeal by Fox because a federal court ruled the FCC only has a "Rule" about accurate reporting and there is no actual law. This was not widely reported at all in the msm yet the court documents are available online.

Another example is the Jim Adkisson terrorist attack on a liberal church. His suicide letter repeated (almost verbatim) many catch phrases put out by people like oreilly, savage, coulter, hannity, etc. The local press reported the cops found books in the terrorist's home by those same pundits yet the msm did not do any wide reporting.


Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other major players signed a manifesto published in Sept 2000 stating their foreign policy goals. One of which was to invade iraq and install permanent bases, regardless if Saddam was in charge or not. They even said WMD would be the best chance at convincing people to go along with it. The msm rarely did any reporting on this at all.

Those are examples of being aware of facts the msm has failed to report on. Callygirl should have given some type of evidence for this OP but she was banking on partisanship trumping facts (like coulter) and she embarrassed herself by not having the facts (like coulter) so she continues to reveal her lack of integrity and honesty but doesn't get paid a dime to make an ass of herself (unlike coulter.)

 

[Immanuel]

Do you try to be this fuxxing self defeating? Pay attention you dummass
. Your OP claims PRIOR to the vote the media was silent about threats to those who planned to vote no. You have never supported that clam. Now, AFTER the vote the media is reporting on violence for those who voted yes.

You're now citing actions by the media that have NOTHING to do with your OP claim.....yet you want to point to that as proof you were correct? You're nothing but a far right skank hack jealous that ann coulter is a millionaire for doing what you attempt to do: manipulate.

It is impossible to prove a negative.

If CG is right, then there would be no media reports whatsoever about violence against those who planned to vote no. There would be no documentation. You would have to prove her wrong by showing that there had been. Which if she showed those same links, would prove you to be right instead of her.

I suppose she might be able to find some squawking head that has made the same claim, but is that proof?

Immie

If the msm was failing to report as she claimed then she should have provided evidence in the OP showing local media or other outlets reporting on alleged threats that were not carried by the msm. A few examples of how this is done:

Maybe I misunderstood what she was saying because I read it as "the media did not cover..." and when I read media, I thought Internet, TV, Newspapers etc. etc. etc.

I did not ignore the rest of your reply simply did not have anything to comment on it and therefore did not feel the need to add it to this post.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

It is impossible to prove a negative.

If CG is right, then there would be no media reports whatsoever about violence against those who planned to vote no. There would be no documentation. You would have to prove her wrong by showing that there had been. Which if she showed those same links, would prove you to be right instead of her.

I suppose she might be able to find some squawking head that has made the same claim, but is that proof?

Immie

If the msm was failing to report as she claimed then she should have provided evidence in the OP showing local media or other outlets reporting on alleged threats that were not carried by the msm. A few examples of how this is done:

Maybe I misunderstood what she was saying because I read it as "the media did not cover..." and when I read media, I thought Internet, TV, Newspapers etc. etc. etc.

I did not ignore the rest of your reply simply did not have anything to comment on it and therefore did not feel the need to add it to this post.

Immie

No misunderstanding. I gave examples of how a negative can be proven. Her claim the msm did not report on threats prior to the Vote is not supported by anything other than her fantasies. She couldn't even produce bullshit blogs as sources. She simply pulled it out of her ass.

 

[Immanuel]

If the msm was failing to report as she claimed then she should have provided evidence in the OP showing local media or other outlets reporting on alleged threats that were not carried by the msm. A few examples of how this is done:

Maybe I misunderstood what she was saying because I read it as "the media did not cover..." and when I read media, I thought Internet, TV, Newspapers etc. etc. etc.

I did not ignore the rest of your reply simply did not have anything to comment on it and therefore did not feel the need to add it to this post.

Immie

No misunderstanding. I gave examples of how a negative can be proven. Her claim the msm did not report on threats prior to the Vote is not supported by anything other than her fantasies. She couldn't even produce bullshit blogs as sources. She simply pulled it out of her ass.

I have to profess a little bit of a lack of knowledge as to the term MSM and what exactly it is. Because my understanding is that MSM refers basically to the internet not the media in general and her word was "media" not MSM.

Yes, you provided proof that she was incorrect, which I didn't doubt anyone who felt that it was worth attempting to spend 45 seconds of their time would be able to do, but had she provided those links she would have been proving your point rather than supporting her point.

Understand what I am saying there?

You are showing that the media did cover those incidences and therefore had she posted those items she would have been supporting your position and not hers. Hell, the very fact that most of us know about those incidences is proof that the media covered the issue to at least some degree.

You use phrases like:

The local press reported the cops found books in the terrorist's home by those same pundits yet the msm did not do any wide reporting.

and:

The msm rarely did any reporting on this at all.

However, her simply linking to one single article about any one of those cases or any case at all involving a threat against someone who promised to vote no would have won your case for you.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Maybe I misunderstood what she was saying because I read it as "the media did not cover..." and when I read media, I thought Internet, TV, Newspapers etc. etc. etc.

I did not ignore the rest of your reply simply did not have anything to comment on it and therefore did not feel the need to add it to this post.

Immie

No misunderstanding. I gave examples of how a negative can be proven. Her claim the msm did not report on threats prior to the Vote is not supported by anything other than her fantasies. She couldn't even produce bullshit blogs as sources. She simply pulled it out of her ass.

I have to profess a little bit of a lack of knowledge as to the term MSM and what exactly it is. Because my understanding is that MSM refers basically to the internet not the media in general and her word was "media" not MSM.

Yes, you provided proof that she was incorrect, which I didn't doubt anyone who felt that it was worth attempting to spend 45 seconds of their time would be able to do, but had she provided those links she would have been proving your point rather than supporting her point.

Understand what I am saying there?

You are showing that the media did cover those incidences and therefore had she posted those items she would have been supporting your position and not hers. Hell, the very fact that most of us know about those incidences is proof that the media covered the issue to at least some degree.

You use phrases like:

The local press reported the cops found books in the terrorist's home by those same pundits yet the msm did not do any wide reporting.

and:

The msm rarely did any reporting on this at all.

However, her simply linking to one single article about any one of those cases or any case at all involving a threat against someone who promised to vote no would have won your case for you.

Immie

Msm=mainstream media so her use of the word "media" is synonymous with msm. A local story from a local source is not the msm or "media" as that term is used. If she had provided links from local outlets showing threats prior to the Vote that were ignored by the media/msm she would have supported her claim.

 

[Immanuel]

No misunderstanding. I gave examples of how a negative can be proven. Her claim the msm did not report on threats prior to the Vote is not supported by anything other than her fantasies. She couldn't even produce bullshit blogs as sources. She simply pulled it out of her ass.

I have to profess a little bit of a lack of knowledge as to the term MSM and what exactly it is. Because my understanding is that MSM refers basically to the internet not the media in general and her word was "media" not MSM.

Yes, you provided proof that she was incorrect, which I didn't doubt anyone who felt that it was worth attempting to spend 45 seconds of their time would be able to do, but had she provided those links she would have been proving your point rather than supporting her point.

Understand what I am saying there?

You are showing that the media did cover those incidences and therefore had she posted those items she would have been supporting your position and not hers. Hell, the very fact that most of us know about those incidences is proof that the media covered the issue to at least some degree.

You use phrases like:


and:

The msm rarely did any reporting on this at all.

However, her simply linking to one single article about any one of those cases or any case at all involving a threat against someone who promised to vote no would have won your case for you.

Immie

Msm=mainstream media so her use of the word "media" is synonymous with msm. A local story from a local source is not the msm or "media" as that term is used. If she had provided links from local outlets showing threats prior to the Vote that were ignored by the media/msm she would have supported her claim.

Okay...

1) thank you for defining MSM for me and wow, was my understanding of MSM off just a tiny bit or what?

2) In my interpretation of what she said "media" being any and all media sources even a local story would have proven you correct, right?

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

I have to profess a little bit of a lack of knowledge as to the term MSM and what exactly it is. Because my understanding is that MSM refers basically to the internet not the media in general and her word was "media" not MSM.

Yes, you provided proof that she was incorrect, which I didn't doubt anyone who felt that it was worth attempting to spend 45 seconds of their time would be able to do, but had she provided those links she would have been proving your point rather than supporting her point.

Understand what I am saying there?

You are showing that the media did cover those incidences and therefore had she posted those items she would have been supporting your position and not hers. Hell, the very fact that most of us know about those incidences is proof that the media covered the issue to at least some degree.

You use phrases like:


and:



However, her simply linking to one single article about any one of those cases or any case at all involving a threat against someone who promised to vote no would have won your case for you.

Immie

Msm=mainstream media so her use of the word "media" is synonymous with msm. A local story from a local source is not the msm or "media" as that term is used. If she had provided links from local outlets showing threats prior to the Vote that were ignored by the media/msm she would have supported her claim.

Okay...

1) thank you for defining MSM for me and wow, was my understanding of MSM off just a tiny bit or what?

2) In my interpretation of what she said "media" being any and all media sources even a local story would have proven you correct, right?

Immie

If she could have provided local sources showing threats she would have supported her claim. Ie. The Lexington Gazette, Tennessee Times, Utah Main Wire, etc. If local outlets were reporting on threats that were ignored by the msm (nbc, fox, cnn, etc) then she would have demonstrated her claim to be correct.

The msm has been reporting on threats and acts done AFTER the voting and she is trying to claim that supports her op which makes claims about threats prior to voting.

 

[Immanuel]

Msm=mainstream media so her use of the word "media" is synonymous with msm. A local story from a local source is not the msm or "media" as that term is used. If she had provided links from local outlets showing threats prior to the Vote that were ignored by the media/msm she would have supported her claim.

Okay...

1) thank you for defining MSM for me and wow, was my understanding of MSM off just a tiny bit or what?

2) In my interpretation of what she said "media" being any and all media sources even a local story would have proven you correct, right?

Immie

If she could have provided local sources showing threats she would have supported her claim. Ie. The Lexington Gazette, Tennessee Times, Utah Main Wire, etc. If local outlets were reporting on threats that were ignored by the msm (nbc, fox, cnn, etc) then she would have demonstrated her claim to be correct.

The msm has been reporting on threats and acts done AFTER the voting and she is trying to claim that supports her op which makes claims about threats prior to voting.

But, see, the issue between you and I is... what did she mean when she said Media.

I can't read her mind so I don't know for sure, but you and I interpreted her post in two different ways. I'm not willing to say mine is correct, because now that you have defined MSM for me it makes more sense. Under your interpretation, she could have presented... and maybe she can(?) present such evidence, but under mine she would have proved your point.

Immie

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I was going to bother replying to the OP, but then I remembered her confession to ABS in another thread that she doesn't care about facts.

Hi, you have received -120 reputation points from California Girl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Liar.

Regards,
California Girl

Note: This is an automated message.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tigates-virginia-incident-12.html#post2134478

 

[CurveLight]

Okay...

1) thank you for defining MSM for me and wow, was my understanding of MSM off just a tiny bit or what?

2) In my interpretation of what she said "media" being any and all media sources even a local story would have proven you correct, right?

Immie

If she could have provided local sources showing threats she would have supported her claim. Ie. The Lexington Gazette, Tennessee Times, Utah Main Wire, etc. If local outlets were reporting on threats that were ignored by the msm (nbc, fox, cnn, etc) then she would have demonstrated her claim to be correct.

The msm has been reporting on threats and acts done AFTER the voting and she is trying to claim that supports her op which makes claims about threats prior to voting.

But, see, the issue between you and I is... what did she mean when she said Media.

I can't read her mind so I don't know for sure, but you and I interpreted her post in two different ways. I'm not willing to say mine is correct, because now that you have defined MSM for me it makes more sense. Under your interpretation, she could have presented... and maybe she can(?) present such evidence, but under mine she would have proved your point.

Immie

There isn't much mystery about how she used the term "media" since she has referenced the msm reporting on post-Vote violence. In either case, she has not provided a shred of evidence there was a media blackout on Reps receiving violent threats if they planned on voting "no."

 

[Immanuel]

If she could have provided local sources showing threats she would have supported her claim. Ie. The Lexington Gazette, Tennessee Times, Utah Main Wire, etc. If local outlets were reporting on threats that were ignored by the msm (nbc, fox, cnn, etc) then she would have demonstrated her claim to be correct.

The msm has been reporting on threats and acts done AFTER the voting and she is trying to claim that supports her op which makes claims about threats prior to voting.

But, see, the issue between you and I is... what did she mean when she said Media.

I can't read her mind so I don't know for sure, but you and I interpreted her post in two different ways. I'm not willing to say mine is correct, because now that you have defined MSM for me it makes more sense. Under your interpretation, she could have presented... and maybe she can(?) present such evidence, but under mine she would have proved your point.

Immie

There isn't much mystery about how she used the term "media" since she has referenced the msm reporting on post-Vote violence. In either case, she has not provided a shred of evidence there was a media blackout on Reps receiving violent threats if they planned on voting "no."

Honestly? Would you expect her to be able to? It was a very broad statement and one I would say that she goofed on. It happens even to the best of you.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

But, see, the issue between you and I is... what did she mean when she said Media.

I can't read her mind so I don't know for sure, but you and I interpreted her post in two different ways. I'm not willing to say mine is correct, because now that you have defined MSM for me it makes more sense. Under your interpretation, she could have presented... and maybe she can(?) present such evidence, but under mine she would have proved your point.

Immie

There isn't much mystery about how she used the term "media" since she has referenced the msm reporting on post-Vote violence. In either case, she has not provided a shred of evidence there was a media blackout on Reps receiving violent threats if they planned on voting "no."

Honestly? Would you expect her to be able to? It was a very broad statement and one I would say that she goofed on. It happens even to the best of you.

Immie

Yes I would expect her to support her op claim. I gave examples showing how one can support the type of claim she made but she changed her op claim on page 9 and has tried to weasel out of admitting she screwed up.....like when coulter claimed Canada sent troops to vietnam......

The only reason this thread didn't get moved to the Conspiracy Theory section is she knows who to get on her knees for. Rude? Yep! But I'm not here to teach etiquette lessons and I sure as hell am not going to be quiet when people of her ilk constantly make bullshit claims then run away when proven wrong.

 

[Immanuel]

There isn't much mystery about how she used the term "media" since she has referenced the msm reporting on post-Vote violence. In either case, she has not provided a shred of evidence there was a media blackout on Reps receiving violent threats if they planned on voting "no."

Honestly? Would you expect her to be able to? It was a very broad statement and one I would say that she goofed on. It happens even to the best of you.

Immie

Yes I would expect her to support her op claim. I gave examples showing how one can support the type of claim she made but she changed her op claim on page 9 and has tried to weasel out of admitting she screwed up.....like when coulter claimed Canada sent troops to vietnam......

The only reason this thread didn't get moved to the Conspiracy Theory section is she knows who to get on her knees for. Rude? Yep! But I'm not here to teach etiquette lessons and I sure as hell am not going to be quiet when people of her ilk constantly make bullshit claims then run away when proven wrong.

Funny thing is that I never know what section a thread is in. When I log on I check "User CP" and respond to posts made to me in subscribed threads and read the new posts on those threads then I simply move over to "New Posts" and get into threads that are ongoing and appear interesting.

I had no clue what forum this was in.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Honestly? Would you expect her to be able to? It was a very broad statement and one I would say that she goofed on. It happens even to the best of you.

Immie

Yes I would expect her to support her op claim. I gave examples showing how one can support the type of claim she made but she changed her op claim on page 9 and has tried to weasel out of admitting she screwed up.....like when coulter claimed Canada sent troops to vietnam......

The only reason this thread didn't get moved to the Conspiracy Theory section is she knows who to get on her knees for. Rude? Yep! But I'm not here to teach etiquette lessons and I sure as hell am not going to be quiet when people of her ilk constantly make bullshit claims then run away when proven wrong.

Funny thing is that I never know what section a thread is in. When I log on I check "User CP" and respond to posts made to me in subscribed threads and read the new posts on those threads then I simply move over to "New Posts" and get into threads that are ongoing and appear interesting.

I had no clue what forum this was in.

Immie

It's at the top of every page of every thread. This one is in "Current Events." Unless that term has been redefined to mean:

"Say Whateva the Hell You Want!"

Then this thread is long gone. I will not hold my breath for CG to admit she made a claim she cannot support.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I was going to bother replying to the OP, but then I remembered her confession to ABS in another thread that she doesn't care about facts.

Hi, you have received -120 reputation points from California Girl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Liar.

Regards,
California Girl

Note: This is an automated message.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tigates-virginia-incident-12.html#post2134478

Wow a graphic example of the new PR tactics of the socialist left (that means you Proletariat) - defame people any way you can.

Wait that's a tactics the Left and Right have both used since the dawn of political parties, and presumably before. My oops.

Must say though that I find CG's use of negative rep to be pretty even handed.

 

[Immanuel]

Yes I would expect her to support her op claim. I gave examples showing how one can support the type of claim she made but she changed her op claim on page 9 and has tried to weasel out of admitting she screwed up.....like when coulter claimed Canada sent troops to vietnam......

The only reason this thread didn't get moved to the Conspiracy Theory section is she knows who to get on her knees for. Rude? Yep! But I'm not here to teach etiquette lessons and I sure as hell am not going to be quiet when people of her ilk constantly make bullshit claims then run away when proven wrong.

Funny thing is that I never know what section a thread is in. When I log on I check "User CP" and respond to posts made to me in subscribed threads and read the new posts on those threads then I simply move over to "New Posts" and get into threads that are ongoing and appear interesting.

I had no clue what forum this was in.

Immie

It's at the top of every page of every thread. This one is in "Current Events." Unless that term has been redefined to mean:

"Say Whateva the Hell You Want!"

Then this thread is long gone. I will not hold my breath for CG to admit she made a claim she cannot support.

Oh, I know it is, but I simply don't care. What difference does it make which forum it is in? People put stuff that belong in the humor section in politics or things that belong in the Flame Zone in Current Events all the time. What difference does it make what forum it is in.

The only time I go into a particular forum is when I want to start a thread myself.

Oh... and please tell me you weren't holding your breath all this time!

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Funny thing is that I never know what section a thread is in. When I log on I check "User CP" and respond to posts made to me in subscribed threads and read the new posts on those threads then I simply move over to "New Posts" and get into threads that are ongoing and appear interesting.

I had no clue what forum this was in.

Immie

It's at the top of every page of every thread. This one is in "Current Events." Unless that term has been redefined to mean:

"Say Whateva the Hell You Want!"

Then this thread is long gone. I will not hold my breath for CG to admit she made a claim she cannot support.

Oh, I know it is, but I simply don't care. What difference does it make which forum it is in? People put stuff that belong in the humor section in politics or things that belong in the Flame Zone in Current Events all the time. What difference does it make what forum it is in.

The only time I go into a particular forum is when I want to start a thread myself.

Oh... and please tell me you weren't holding your breath all this time!

Immie

It matters because organization is not the enemy of honesty.

 

[L.K.Eder]

It's at the top of every page of every thread. This one is in "Current Events." Unless that term has been redefined to mean:

"Say Whateva the Hell You Want!"

Then this thread is long gone. I will not hold my breath for CG to admit she made a claim she cannot support.

Oh, I know it is, but I simply don't care. What difference does it make which forum it is in? People put stuff that belong in the humor section in politics or things that belong in the Flame Zone in Current Events all the time. What difference does it make what forum it is in.

The only time I go into a particular forum is when I want to start a thread myself.

Oh... and please tell me you weren't holding your breath all this time!

Immie

It matters because organization is not the enemy of honesty.

and cally is known for whining about threads in the "wrong" section.

she should get the privilege to post her crappy op-ed innuendos directly in the lame zone.