We'll get to that in a minute...
Not confused, numbnuts…just looking for some clarification before proceeding…unless of course, you’re stymied…Blackvegetable » Today, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑ Don't confuse yourself.
Do you want to answer the questions from which your fellow coward is running?
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom No.ROG62 » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Not confused, numbnuts…just looking for some clarification before proceeding…
Have already gotten too it. You deleted in a dishonest matter. What I post is 100% factual.DB FAILED to fact the X quote. That's on them. Pull that **** in school and whine to the PROF that you did not say, you only reported it. I accept your surrender. Now, I am off to enjoy a little retired life. I'll be back in a few.Blackvegetable » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑We'll get to that in a minute...Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑I am saying that once again DB failed to fact check the comments and you ran with it
Did he, or did he not, post that on X?
Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
I am saying that once again DB failed to fact check the comments and you ran with it.
this why DB has such a low credibility score.
Rather than waste time...
No questions.Blackvegetable » Today, 12:18 pm » wrote: ↑Rather than waste time...
He DID post that on X.
DB has not lied.
Can you prove it was a lie when he posted it?
I'm perfectly satisfied that you lied about DB lying.
Someone's opinion about how other people had or do perform in public arenas of ideas that conflict with every other social interpretation life is but a dream state of mind, born to buried, philosophy becoming traditional family values..
If they had fact checked the article would (a) not have been written or (b) written to say the tweet was wrong.Blackvegetable » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑I'm perfectly satisfied that you lied about DB lying.
Again.
You also lied about their source.
You lied about DB "fact checking".
You really should read stuff before running your yap
Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ If they had fact checked the article would (a) not have been written or
I did read that. I see you finally did. I seriously doubt you originally posted fro the daily beast because you are only know posting that.Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑Huey » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑If they had fact checked the article would (a) not have been written or (b) written to say the tweet was wrong.
As usual, the retired broken down dude owns you. EPIC THREAD FAIL.
In response, a Fox News spokeswoman told the Daily Beast that the network covered the allegations on its TV output last Thursday as part of a wider report on Trump, and on its social media channel.
how many things must you be wrong about in one day?
You would better served to just stop posting about this. I got an answer for all your spin and reframes.Huey » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑If they had fact checked the article would (a) not have been written or (b) written to say the tweet was wrong.Blackvegetable » 26 minutes ago » wrote: ↑I'm perfectly satisfied that you lied about DB lying.
Again.
You also lied about their source.
You lied about DB "fact checking".
You really should read stuff before running your yap
As usual, the retired broken down dude owns you. EPIC THREAD FAIL.
The ENTIRE STORY is ****, ****!!
See that HIGHLIGHTED PART. It's a **** LIE and has been PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IT IS.Given the magnitude of the story, LaCorte said that he was deeply troubled by his former employer’s apparent silence over the allegations against Guilfoyle, 57, who could now be fired by President Donald Trump, 80.
“Fox has 0 reporting online about this,” he wrote on X, saying the network’s last article mentioning Guilfoyle dated Dec. 10, 2024, when Trump announced her nomination.
Asian chicks are more moral and more oral.JohnnyYou » Today, 3:31 am » wrote: ↑ What the hell is Kimberly?
She's just lips to you..
A symbol of The Great American Blow Job..
That you acknowledge or know about.
Stop.Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I did read that. I see you finally did. I seriously doubt you originally posted fro the daily beast because you are only know posting that.
The date the fox online article was written was the 11th.
Sure, Screech...Cannonpointer » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ That you acknowledge or know about.
But he is a symption. He is a symptom.
I have stopped. I won. Just enjoying my retirement thanks to DOD.Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑Stop.Huey » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I did read that. I see you finally did. I seriously doubt you originally posted fro the daily beast because you are only know posting that.
The date the fox online article was written was the 11th.
If you knew they checked with FOX, why did you lie about their fact checking?
The 11th was Sunday.
The story broke Thursday.
How do you "win" by being wrong about objective facts you refuse to acknowledge?
Is bruce jenner male or female, fruitcake?
