Wall Street Journal caught in front-page lie

[daveman]

Let me quote daveman for the perfect response to that:

So, instead of rising above the behavior you condemn, you choose to wallow in it.

Daveman posted that??

I guess he's making a stretch run for ironic post of the week, which, ironically, is currently being won by CaliforniaGirl.

Ahh, this must be a definition of "ironic" I haven't yet seen:

Ironic: Something a leftist doesn't like.

Would it be too much to ask if you morons used a REAL dictionary?

 

[daveman]

So the WSJ did it, and it's a lie.

ABC, NPR, NYT and CNN report the same story.....and it's just good old honest reporting?

You rarely see such blatant hypocrisy so proudly displayed.

I'd bet that you can find at least 15,253 times on this forum.

"Hypocrisy: Something a leftist doesn't like."


Is that how you retards define all your words?

 

[daveman]

You keep your money. Use it to buy a fucking clue.

I already have two: you're not a conservative, and you've got nothing to be proud of.

You have him pegged. In just over 400 posts, too!

Sorry, retarded leftists have no basis for defining who is and who isn't a conservative.

And I've got plenty to be proud of. Your pathetic, childish insistence that I don't is meaningless and serves only as an attempt to make you feel better about your own accomplishments, which no doubt pale in comparison.

 

[daveman]

Ahhh. Just more typical leftist misogyny, then.

And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?

daveman has no enemies to his Right. This has been proven time and time again.

Liar. I've shown you personally where I've condemned people on the right.

Keep reading. Then condemn Rinata's comment to CG. Then you won't be such a hypocrite.

But you won't condemn it, and you will be a hypocrite.

 

[daveman]

dude, go to the handbook, see; liberal rule no. 3;

'anyone of alike skin color or gender can make fun of each other, as long as they aren't both liberal'.

As I said above, NY takes offence that I refer to Rinata as a fat ass. But, I've never seen him criticize her for telling me my deceased fiance 'dodged a bullet' for dying instead of marrying me. Personally, I think her comment was far more insulting than mine.... but, of course, he defends her...... just goes to show that shit sticks together.

He's a fucking little shit... and Rinata is a fat bitch.

Where did she say that? Link, please. I would like to rep her.

Of course you would. You're loathsome and hateful, too.

Oh, and don't say you were going to neg rep her, either. Nobody would believe it.

 

[Trajan]

The poster didn't find it. Why he have found it, and then lied, saying it was down, knowing how easy it would be to prove him a liar?

oh oh me me me me ..

because he didn't look?

Are you accusing me of something?

If so, do it directly or keep your fabrications to yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The poster didn't find it. Why he have found it, and then lied, saying it was down, knowing how easy it would be to prove him a liar?

Because he is an idiot that wants to pretend he is a pundit?

That would make him a conservative around here. Not plausible.

He blamed it on the 24 hour news cycle and the fact that he is a pundit that is trying to keep up with it. That proves that he wants to be a pundit. I read the story in the 17 June WSJ, making it over a week old. That proves he is an idiot.

That proves that I am right. I don't see how it makes him a conservative, but that is your label, so you have to justify it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles.

I would love to see examples of the NYTimes doing this. I ask the wingnuts here all the time to give me examples of NYTimes bias in their news stories, and they have failed miserably, batting .000 (when they even take a swing at it).

Read this story and ask yourself why they never mention religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24seattle.html?_r=1

 

[Sallow]

What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles.

I would love to see examples of the NYTimes doing this. I ask the wingnuts here all the time to give me examples of NYTimes bias in their news stories, and they have failed miserably, batting .000 (when they even take a swing at it).

Read this story and ask yourself why they never mention religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24seattle.html?_r=1

Why the heck should they?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I already have two: you're not a conservative, and you've got nothing to be proud of.

You have him pegged. In just over 400 posts, too!

Sorry, retarded leftists have no basis for defining who is and who isn't a conservative.

And I've got plenty to be proud of. Your pathetic, childish insistence that I don't is meaningless and serves only as an attempt to make you feel better about your own accomplishments, which no doubt pale in comparison.

Daveman's copious contributions to this thread: fail.

 

[daveman]

You have him pegged. In just over 400 posts, too!

Sorry, retarded leftists have no basis for defining who is and who isn't a conservative.

And I've got plenty to be proud of. Your pathetic, childish insistence that I don't is meaningless and serves only as an attempt to make you feel better about your own accomplishments, which no doubt pale in comparison.

Daveman's copious contributions to this thread: fail.

Given your utter failure with the OP, I'd say your judgement is less than accurate.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You have him pegged. In just over 400 posts, too!

Sorry, retarded leftists have no basis for defining who is and who isn't a conservative.

And I've got plenty to be proud of. Your pathetic, childish insistence that I don't is meaningless and serves only as an attempt to make you feel better about your own accomplishments, which no doubt pale in comparison.

Daveman's copious contributions to this thread: fail.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Sorry, retarded leftists have no basis for defining who is and who isn't a conservative.

And I've got plenty to be proud of. Your pathetic, childish insistence that I don't is meaningless and serves only as an attempt to make you feel better about your own accomplishments, which no doubt pale in comparison.

Daveman's copious contributions to this thread: fail.

Thanks. I can recycle that one for most of his posts.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Daveman's copious contributions to this thread: fail.

Thanks. I can recycle that one for most of his posts.

It would be better as your avatar.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Thanks. I can recycle that one for most of his posts.

It would be better as your avatar.

Not wonky-looking enough.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Thanks. I can recycle that one for most of his posts.

It would be better as your avatar.

Not wonky-looking enough.

You're right. It's not retarded enough.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

It would be better as your avatar.

Not wonky-looking enough.

You're right. It's not retarded enough.

OTOH I'd say your avi's working great for you.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Not wonky-looking enough.

You're right. It's not retarded enough.

OTOH I'd say your avi's working great for you.

Thanks. I don't like to give the impression that I'm a pretentious know-it-all douchebag.

Others like to do so.

To each their own.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

You're right. It's not retarded enough.

OTOH I'd say your avi's working great for you.

Thanks. I don't like to give the impression that I'm a pretentious know-it-all douchebag.

Dude, that doesn't mean you have to defend the irretrievably stupid.

 

[daveman]

OTOH I'd say your avi's working great for you.

Thanks. I don't like to give the impression that I'm a pretentious know-it-all douchebag.

Dude, that doesn't mean you have to defend the irretrievably stupid.

Others like to do so.

To each their own.

He's giving you the benefit of the doubt.