Did You Miss "UP"

[NYcarbineer]

[f. "Ingraham to NBC's Todd: 'I Don’t Remember You Saying Pollsters Were Concerned About Bush’s Poll Numbers'"
.

That has nothing to do with the issue of Chuck Todd being biased to the left. The accusation above is that NBC's pollsters are biased.

Two down. How many more to go?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not just that you are wrong, it's that you're dense.

You fail to understand the context...

1."... let's start breaking this down..."
By start...you mean 'end' as you went no further than the Washington Post article.

2. As is true of so very many Leftists...see if the shoe fits...they have no soul, and honesty is way, way on the back burner.
When the syndicate of Leftist 'journalists' known as the Journolist Scandal was revealed...Todd at first pretended he was shocked, a la Claude Rains in 'Casablanca.'

a. But..."But I spoke today with Todd, and he told me..." that he was only kidding.
Do you realize that Greg Sargent was one of the syndicate???

b. "Greg Sargent is a Washington Post blogger. He’s also a former member of Journolist..."
Greg Sargent’s Journolist Pushback | Verum Serum

c. "Todd was reported to have found the JournoList revelations to be “very depressing” and said that the story had “kept him up nights” because of the overt leftist bias evinced by the list member’s emails....But later that day another story claiming that Todd was taken out of context emerged that told a slightly different tale. In the afternoon JouronLista Greg Sargent wrote..."
JournoList, Shame of a Nation: Does Chuck Todd Agree or Disagree? - Big Journalism

3. So, my simple friend, your lack of cognitive abilities prevents you from viewing the 'evidence' provided, correctly.


4. Now let's be honest. You and I both know that I could have produced a signed and dated affidavit from Todd admitting his Leftist bias, and you would have retreated to your default position:
"Is not, is not....."


5. Let's make this into a quiz...if you are the dishonest little turnip that I think you are, you will either ignore this post....or pretend you don't understand it.

On second thought...based on ability, ...you may not understand it.

Nothing in your post refutes the fact that you offered up the Plumline article as evidence in the Todd Journolist episode,

and the evidence therein, which was a clarification of Todd's position,

endorses Todd's position as balanced.

So we'll assume you can't refute that and thus the whole Journolist portion of your 'evidence' can be dismissed.

What would like me to address next?

"So we'll assume you can't refute that and thus the whole Journolist portion of your 'evidence' can be dismissed."

Except for two itsy-bitsy facts...

1. As I explained twice so far, the author of the Plumline article is one of the Journolista-syndicate.
See...he's fronting for the other Leftist....Chuck Todd.

and...
2. You are studiously incapable of processing that.


Next!

So we can dismiss all sources here that themselves have a known bias? Then Newbusters is out, and Laura Ingraham is out. And I'll have to look back and see who else is disqualified,

by your own rule, that you just made up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nothing in your post refutes the fact that you offered up the Plumline article as evidence in the Todd Journolist episode,

and the evidence therein, which was a clarification of Todd's position,

endorses Todd's position as balanced.

So we'll assume you can't refute that and thus the whole Journolist portion of your 'evidence' can be dismissed.

What would like me to address next?

"So we'll assume you can't refute that and thus the whole Journolist portion of your 'evidence' can be dismissed."

Except for two itsy-bitsy facts...

1. As I explained twice so far, the author of the Plumline article is one of the Journolista-syndicate.
See...he's fronting for the other Leftist....Chuck Todd.

and...
2. You are studiously incapable of processing that.


Next!

So we can dismiss all sources here that themselves have a known bias? Then Newbusters is out, and Laura Ingraham is out. And I'll have to look back and see who else is disqualified,

by your own rule, that you just made up.

Can't I just drop a quarter in your cup and let it go at that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"So we'll assume you can't refute that and thus the whole Journolist portion of your 'evidence' can be dismissed."

Except for two itsy-bitsy facts...

1. As I explained twice so far, the author of the Plumline article is one of the Journolista-syndicate.
See...he's fronting for the other Leftist....Chuck Todd.

and...
2. You are studiously incapable of processing that.


Next!

So we can dismiss all sources here that themselves have a known bias? Then Newbusters is out, and Laura Ingraham is out. And I'll have to look back and see who else is disqualified,

by your own rule, that you just made up.

Can't I just drop a quarter in your cup and let it go at that?

Your insults increase proportionately to how badly you're losing an argument. That's quite an obvious tell.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So we can dismiss all sources here that themselves have a known bias? Then Newbusters is out, and Laura Ingraham is out. And I'll have to look back and see who else is disqualified,

by your own rule, that you just made up.

Can't I just drop a quarter in your cup and let it go at that?

Your insults increase proportionately to how badly you're losing an argument. That's quite an obvious tell.

Thank you...I pride myself on that 'increase.'

My loss is an artifact of your lack of perception.

But, with respect to the subject of your post, there is an old joke that says every Arabic word has four meanings: the first is the common usage, the second is the exact opposite of the first, the third is something pertaining to a camel, and the fourth is so unspeakably vulgar that no one will tell you what it is.
I can’t decide whether you fit the third or fourth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can't I just drop a quarter in your cup and let it go at that?

Your insults increase proportionately to how badly you're losing an argument. That's quite an obvious tell.

Thank you...I pride myself on that 'increase.'

My loss is an artifact of your lack of perception.

But, with respect to the subject of your post, there is an old joke that says every Arabic word has four meanings: the first is the common usage, the second is the exact opposite of the first, the third is something pertaining to a camel, and the fourth is so unspeakably vulgar that no one will tell you what it is.
I can’t decide whether you fit the third or fourth.

Did you turn gay because you were tired of driving men to suicide?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your insults increase proportionately to how badly you're losing an argument. That's quite an obvious tell.

Thank you...I pride myself on that 'increase.'

My loss is an artifact of your lack of perception.

But, with respect to the subject of your post, there is an old joke that says every Arabic word has four meanings: the first is the common usage, the second is the exact opposite of the first, the third is something pertaining to a camel, and the fourth is so unspeakably vulgar that no one will tell you what it is.
I can’t decide whether you fit the third or fourth.

Did you turn gay because you were tired of driving men to suicide?

I REALLY could use an explanation of this one.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thank you...I pride myself on that 'increase.'

My loss is an artifact of your lack of perception.

But, with respect to the subject of your post, there is an old joke that says every Arabic word has four meanings: the first is the common usage, the second is the exact opposite of the first, the third is something pertaining to a camel, and the fourth is so unspeakably vulgar that no one will tell you what it is.
I can’t decide whether you fit the third or fourth.

Did you turn gay because you were tired of driving men to suicide?

I REALLY could use an explanation of this one.....

I was trying to say something that would for once leave you at a loss for smartass retort.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you turn gay because you were tired of driving men to suicide?

I REALLY could use an explanation of this one.....

I was trying to say something that would for once leave you at a loss for smartass retort.

C'mon now...admit most of 'em are pretty funny.

I'll admit I write stuff that makes me laugh.