So President David DENNISON admitted in CA court he had the affair with Stormy!

[HappyJoy]

Jesus, do you have to act personally offended in every post?

Ok, so why would Trump sue Daniels for $20 million if there wasn't an NDA?

I don't know. Maybe we'll find out. Then we'll know.

Until then, I don't care.
.

You don't know why Trump is suing Daniels for $20 million? It's already been reported, for breaking the confidentiality agreement which covers a relationship that the two of them have that you even recognize happened.

I guess it's just not obvious enough for you.

Had Trump actually, literally admitted to the affair, I would have found that interesting.

Well, there you go, nobody claimed Trump 'literally' said anything, it's his actions that are an admission. I believe that was the point of the OP and you want to play a game of semantics.

Merely pointed out that yet another OP title was comically misleading.

The fact that this upset you so much is telling. And not surprising.

Because for people like you, intellectual honesty is entirely optional.
.

Wasn't misleading at all and wasn't intellectually dishonest either. You're just out trolling about partisanship again.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know. Maybe we'll find out. Then we'll know.

Until then, I don't care.
.

You don't know why Trump is suing Daniels for $20 million? It's already been reported, for breaking the confidentiality agreement which covers a relationship that the two of them have that you even recognize happened.

I guess it's just not obvious enough for you.

Had Trump actually, literally admitted to the affair, I would have found that interesting.

Well, there you go, nobody claimed Trump 'literally' said anything, it's his actions that are an admission. I believe that was the point of the OP and you want to play a game of semantics.

Merely pointed out that yet another OP title was comically misleading.

The fact that this upset you so much is telling. And not surprising.

Because for people like you, intellectual honesty is entirely optional.
.

Wasn't misleading at all and wasn't intellectually dishonest either. You're just out trolling about partisanship again.

That's why you're so triggered.

Understandable.
.

 

[HappyJoy]

You don't know why Trump is suing Daniels for $20 million? It's already been reported, for breaking the confidentiality agreement which covers a relationship that the two of them have that you even recognize happened.

I guess it's just not obvious enough for you.

Had Trump actually, literally admitted to the affair, I would have found that interesting.

Well, there you go, nobody claimed Trump 'literally' said anything, it's his actions that are an admission. I believe that was the point of the OP and you want to play a game of semantics.

Merely pointed out that yet another OP title was comically misleading.

The fact that this upset you so much is telling. And not surprising.

Because for people like you, intellectual honesty is entirely optional.
.

Wasn't misleading at all and wasn't intellectually dishonest either. You're just out trolling about partisanship again.

That's why you're so triggered.

Understandable.
.

Nah, just don't like it when someone's agenda is to allegedly calls out lies when it actually turns out they didn't understand the thread title.

Actions = intent.

 

[Mac1958]

Had Trump actually, literally admitted to the affair, I would have found that interesting.

Well, there you go, nobody claimed Trump 'literally' said anything, it's his actions that are an admission. I believe that was the point of the OP and you want to play a game of semantics.

Merely pointed out that yet another OP title was comically misleading.

The fact that this upset you so much is telling. And not surprising.

Because for people like you, intellectual honesty is entirely optional.
.

Wasn't misleading at all and wasn't intellectually dishonest either. You're just out trolling about partisanship again.

That's why you're so triggered.

Understandable.
.

Nah, just don't like it when someone's agenda is to allegedly calls out lies when it actually turns out they didn't understand the thread title.

Actions = intent.

Yeah.

And no doubt you would have jumped in like this had it been a PRO Trump thread.

You people really are a hoot.
.

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, there you go, nobody claimed Trump 'literally' said anything, it's his actions that are an admission. I believe that was the point of the OP and you want to play a game of semantics.

Merely pointed out that yet another OP title was comically misleading.

The fact that this upset you so much is telling. And not surprising.

Because for people like you, intellectual honesty is entirely optional.
.

Wasn't misleading at all and wasn't intellectually dishonest either. You're just out trolling about partisanship again.

That's why you're so triggered.

Understandable.
.

Nah, just don't like it when someone's agenda is to allegedly calls out lies when it actually turns out they didn't understand the thread title.

Actions = intent.

Yeah.

And no doubt you would have jumped in like this had it been a PRO Trump thread.

You people really are a hoot.
.

Now you're going to turn this into a false equivalency and not have anything to back up that claim with. Good for you, Mac. Because a thread title didn't meet the high standard of literalness that you demand you are now going to defend that position by falsely claiming I'm as guilty as you.

Good job, you're once again a hypocrite, making claims you can't back up while going after others for doing the same (even when they aren't).

 

[Mac1958]

Merely pointed out that yet another OP title was comically misleading.

The fact that this upset you so much is telling. And not surprising.

Because for people like you, intellectual honesty is entirely optional.
.

Wasn't misleading at all and wasn't intellectually dishonest either. You're just out trolling about partisanship again.

That's why you're so triggered.

Understandable.
.

Nah, just don't like it when someone's agenda is to allegedly calls out lies when it actually turns out they didn't understand the thread title.

Actions = intent.

Yeah.

And no doubt you would have jumped in like this had it been a PRO Trump thread.

You people really are a hoot.
.

Now you're going to turn this into a false equivalency and not have anything to back up that claim with. Good for you, Mac. Because a thread title didn't meet the high standard of literalness that you demand you are now going to defend that position by falsely claiming I'm as guilty as you.

Good job, you're once again a hypocrite, making claims you can't back up while going after others for doing the same (even when they aren't).

You wingers back up my claims for me every single day. You're hypocrites.

The first line of my sig couldn't be more accurate, regardless of your spin.
.

 

[HappyJoy]

Wasn't misleading at all and wasn't intellectually dishonest either. You're just out trolling about partisanship again.

That's why you're so triggered.

Understandable.
.

Nah, just don't like it when someone's agenda is to allegedly calls out lies when it actually turns out they didn't understand the thread title.

Actions = intent.

Yeah.

And no doubt you would have jumped in like this had it been a PRO Trump thread.

You people really are a hoot.
.

Now you're going to turn this into a false equivalency and not have anything to back up that claim with. Good for you, Mac. Because a thread title didn't meet the high standard of literalness that you demand you are now going to defend that position by falsely claiming I'm as guilty as you.

Good job, you're once again a hypocrite, making claims you can't back up while going after others for doing the same (even when they aren't).

You wingers back up my claims for me every single day. You're hypocrites.

The first line of my sig couldn't be more accurate, regardless of your spin.
.

Now you're saying I'm a hypocrite but provide no evidence. Gee Mac, I thought it was only partisans who were dishonest, you really need to get that mirror out.

 

[Mac1958]

That's why you're so triggered.

Understandable.
.

Nah, just don't like it when someone's agenda is to allegedly calls out lies when it actually turns out they didn't understand the thread title.

Actions = intent.

Yeah.

And no doubt you would have jumped in like this had it been a PRO Trump thread.

You people really are a hoot.
.

Now you're going to turn this into a false equivalency and not have anything to back up that claim with. Good for you, Mac. Because a thread title didn't meet the high standard of literalness that you demand you are now going to defend that position by falsely claiming I'm as guilty as you.

Good job, you're once again a hypocrite, making claims you can't back up while going after others for doing the same (even when they aren't).

You wingers back up my claims for me every single day. You're hypocrites.

The first line of my sig couldn't be more accurate, regardless of your spin.
.

Now you're saying I'm a hypocrite but provide no evidence. Gee Mac, I thought it was only partisans who were dishonest, you really need to get that mirror out.

Of course I did, in Post 184. You just ignored it like a good and obedient partisan ideologue.

This is why I no longer bother trying to communicate with zealots online. I may as well be trying to communicate with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damscus or a sign-carrying member of the Westboro Bapist Church protesting a soldier's funeral. There's simply nothing there.

You just hate being compared to those you loathe, right wingers. I can understand that, but that's your own fault, not mine. ***** about my posts all you want.
.

 

[HappyJoy]

Nah, just don't like it when someone's agenda is to allegedly calls out lies when it actually turns out they didn't understand the thread title.

Actions = intent.

Yeah.

And no doubt you would have jumped in like this had it been a PRO Trump thread.

You people really are a hoot.
.

Now you're going to turn this into a false equivalency and not have anything to back up that claim with. Good for you, Mac. Because a thread title didn't meet the high standard of literalness that you demand you are now going to defend that position by falsely claiming I'm as guilty as you.

Good job, you're once again a hypocrite, making claims you can't back up while going after others for doing the same (even when they aren't).

You wingers back up my claims for me every single day. You're hypocrites.

The first line of my sig couldn't be more accurate, regardless of your spin.
.

Now you're saying I'm a hypocrite but provide no evidence. Gee Mac, I thought it was only partisans who were dishonest, you really need to get that mirror out.

Of course I did, in Post 184. You just ignored it like a good and obedient partisan ideologue.

Post 184 isn't evidence, it's merely your opinion. Does that really have to be explained to you?

This is why I no longer bother trying to communicate with zealots online. I may as well be trying to communicate with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damscus or a sign-carrying member of the Westboro Bapist Church protesting a soldier's funeral. There's simply nothing there.

Once again, Mac, you got another thread wrong and you're blaming others for it. Why am I a 'zealot' because you didn't understand a thread title? And then you go on about your fear of people having opinions by comparing the to the WBC, there is nothing in your post that makes sense other than 'political ideology = bad' and you live off of that and never feel you actually have to prove a point.

You just hate being compared to those you loathe, right wingers. I can understand that, but that's your own fault, not mine. ***** about my posts all you want.
.

Mac, you're a single note out of tune trombone.

Do I think partisans are biased? Of course I do, it happens on both sides. Do I think they are equal? No, but that's not really the point here. You're the worst person to point out political bias because you so obviously are driven by it, you find it where it doesn't exist, like the thread title (which unfortunately was merge into this thread and no longer the thread title) which you didn't understand or at least assumed it was incorrect because your own bias is getting in the way of actual thought.

You did the same thing in a thread about alleged bias on CNN's part during their Parkland Florida town hall. CNN did everything right but you still argued that CNN had a liberal bias. Which is a valid point of view but when challenged on it you provided no evidence, nothing to back up your point of view. You know who does that? The dishonest political ideologues you rally against. Hell, I'd say in some cases they actually bring more to the debate than you do.

 

[BULLDOG]

 

[HappyJoy]

Is it odd that the first thing I got from the video is what Trump was attempting to do with his comb over?

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah.

And no doubt you would have jumped in like this had it been a PRO Trump thread.

You people really are a hoot.
.

Now you're going to turn this into a false equivalency and not have anything to back up that claim with. Good for you, Mac. Because a thread title didn't meet the high standard of literalness that you demand you are now going to defend that position by falsely claiming I'm as guilty as you.

Good job, you're once again a hypocrite, making claims you can't back up while going after others for doing the same (even when they aren't).

You wingers back up my claims for me every single day. You're hypocrites.

The first line of my sig couldn't be more accurate, regardless of your spin.
.

Now you're saying I'm a hypocrite but provide no evidence. Gee Mac, I thought it was only partisans who were dishonest, you really need to get that mirror out.

Of course I did, in Post 184. You just ignored it like a good and obedient partisan ideologue.

Post 184 isn't evidence, it's merely your opinion. Does that really have to be explained to you?

This is why I no longer bother trying to communicate with zealots online. I may as well be trying to communicate with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damscus or a sign-carrying member of the Westboro Bapist Church protesting a soldier's funeral. There's simply nothing there.

Once again, Mac, you got another thread wrong and you're blaming others for it. Why am I a 'zealot' because you didn't understand a thread title? And then you go on about your fear of people having opinions by comparing the to the WBC, there is nothing in your post that makes sense other than 'political ideology = bad' and you live off of that and never feel you actually have to prove a point.

You just hate being compared to those you loathe, right wingers. I can understand that, but that's your own fault, not mine. ***** about my posts all you want.
.

Mac, you're a single note out of tune trombone.

Do I think partisans are biased? Of course I do, it happens on both sides. Do I think they are equal? No, but that's not really the point here. You're the worst person to point out political bias because you so obviously are driven by it, you find it where it doesn't exist, like the thread title (which unfortunately was merge into this thread and no longer the thread title) which you didn't understand or at least assumed it was incorrect because your own bias is getting in the way of actual thought.

You did the same thing in a thread about alleged bias on CNN's part during their Parkland Florida town hall. CNN did everything right but you still argued that CNN had a liberal bias. Which is a valid point of view but when challenged on it you provided no evidence, nothing to back up your point of view. You know who does that? The dishonest political ideologues you rally against. Hell, I'd say in some cases they actually bring more to the debate than you do.

Wow, I'm sure that's all very interesting. As I said, ***** all you want.
.

 

[HappyJoy]

Now you're going to turn this into a false equivalency and not have anything to back up that claim with. Good for you, Mac. Because a thread title didn't meet the high standard of literalness that you demand you are now going to defend that position by falsely claiming I'm as guilty as you.

Good job, you're once again a hypocrite, making claims you can't back up while going after others for doing the same (even when they aren't).

You wingers back up my claims for me every single day. You're hypocrites.

The first line of my sig couldn't be more accurate, regardless of your spin.
.

Now you're saying I'm a hypocrite but provide no evidence. Gee Mac, I thought it was only partisans who were dishonest, you really need to get that mirror out.

Of course I did, in Post 184. You just ignored it like a good and obedient partisan ideologue.

Post 184 isn't evidence, it's merely your opinion. Does that really have to be explained to you?

This is why I no longer bother trying to communicate with zealots online. I may as well be trying to communicate with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damscus or a sign-carrying member of the Westboro Bapist Church protesting a soldier's funeral. There's simply nothing there.

Once again, Mac, you got another thread wrong and you're blaming others for it. Why am I a 'zealot' because you didn't understand a thread title? And then you go on about your fear of people having opinions by comparing the to the WBC, there is nothing in your post that makes sense other than 'political ideology = bad' and you live off of that and never feel you actually have to prove a point.

You just hate being compared to those you loathe, right wingers. I can understand that, but that's your own fault, not mine. ***** about my posts all you want.
.

Mac, you're a single note out of tune trombone.

Do I think partisans are biased? Of course I do, it happens on both sides. Do I think they are equal? No, but that's not really the point here. You're the worst person to point out political bias because you so obviously are driven by it, you find it where it doesn't exist, like the thread title (which unfortunately was merge into this thread and no longer the thread title) which you didn't understand or at least assumed it was incorrect because your own bias is getting in the way of actual thought.

You did the same thing in a thread about alleged bias on CNN's part during their Parkland Florida town hall. CNN did everything right but you still argued that CNN had a liberal bias. Which is a valid point of view but when challenged on it you provided no evidence, nothing to back up your point of view. You know who does that? The dishonest political ideologues you rally against. Hell, I'd say in some cases they actually bring more to the debate than you do.

Wow, I'm sure that's all very interesting. As I said, ***** all you want.
.

There you go, Mac, walk away like you accomplished something.