Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 3:56 pm » wrote: Denial. It's the first stage of grief.

Poor Glory Hole. I can''t wait to see him hit "bargaining."

As if you've ever read the magazine, psycho.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:57 pm » wrote:
Half the conservatives on the old board cited various sources about this, including the NYTimes.

So let me guess, you never saw a single one of them, even though I saw you respond in those threads, right?

You don't accept links to FORBES, a publication that YOU SUBSCRIBE TO, and you are whining about people just failing to SEE sources?

My God.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:57 pm » wrote:
As if you've ever read the magazine, psycho.

I have read it and The Economist and the Wasilla Gazette, son.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 3:53 pm » wrote:Link? I know you've cited it many times in the past, right?

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:26 pm » wrote: Half the conservatives on the old board cited various sources about this, including the NYTimes.
So let me guess, you never saw a single one of them, even though I saw you respond in those threads, right?

Newsflash Pumpkin, this is not the 'old board' and nothing that happened there can be used as any kind of a source here, especially since so much of the content is gone.
That's not how it works.
This is a new forum and the only thing that counts is what is posted here.

Your old trick about how things have been cited in the past either by you or others doesn't wash.
No one buys that **** any more.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 4:03 pm » wrote: Newsflash Pumpkin, this is not the 'old board' and nothing that happened there can be used as any kind of a source here, especially since so much of the content is gone.
That's not how it works.
This is a new forum and the only thing that counts is what is posted here.

Your old trick about how things have been cited in the past either by you or others doesn't wash.
No one buys that **** any more.

Oh that's so clever! Pretending you never saw the many, many, many links that have been cited for years.

What no one buys is your endless bulls*** and evasions.


F*** off, liar.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 3:58 pm » wrote: You don't accept links to FORBES, a publication that YOU SUBSCRIBE TO, and you are whining about people just failing to SEE sources?

My God.

Great job at utterly bungling the point.

I accept it was carried on the Forbes website. I accept that he's your customary liberal idiot.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 3:59 pm » wrote: I have read it and The Economist and the Wasilla Gazette, son.

Sure you have, sweetheart.

What, you were searching for the Vast Capitalist Right Wing Conspiracy?

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 4:09 pm » wrote:
Oh that's so clever! Pretending you never saw the many, many, many links that have been cited for years.

THIS song again...

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 10:22 pm » wrote:
The WSJ is one of the oldest publications for economic, market and financial analysis and information, referenced in many scholarly databases. You're going to have a difficult time convincing intellectual thinking people that one of the most used financial sources is propaganda.

Or perhaps you're basing your perception on what you believe about the WSJ from the sections they let you read for free...

It used to be. But it is tainted with the Rupert stank.

golfboy » 18 Feb 2014 7:46 am » wrote: You claim the WSJ is propaganda, but the NY Times, is NOT?

I made that claim?

onlyaladd » 19 Feb 2014 6:57 pm » wrote: It used to be. But it is tainted with the Rupert stank.

As I have said, you're going to provide more substance than that if you're trying to convince people a lot smarter than you that it isn't a good publication.

Until then, all we really have is partisan rhetoric.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 4:09 pm » wrote:Oh that's so clever! Pretending you never saw the many, many, many links that have been cited for years.

No one saw them Kitten, because they don't exist.
Arguing with you is about as useful as repeatedly bashing ones head into a brick wall.
You claim to want debate, but that's the last thing you want.
Your idea of debate is insisting that you are right about everything, and anyone who disagrees with you is a lying, psychotic moonbat.

However OTOH, I really do like your Facebook page.



Cute hat.

AmazonTania » 19 Feb 2014 7:03 pm » wrote: Until then, all we really have is partisan rhetoric.

Then you should feel quite at home, Peaches.

Misty » 19 Feb 2014 8:09 pm » wrote: No one saw them Kitten, because they don't exist.

Oh, that's so clever! Right up with Clinton's,"That depends on what the meaning of "is" is."

No, they "don't exist" because the board is gone.


But many of them existed and you saw them.

You're a literal psychopath. How sad.

RichClem » 20 Feb 2014 8:17 am » wrote: Oh, that's so clever! Right up with Clinton's,"That depends on what the meaning of "is" is."
No, they "don't exist" because the board is gone.
But many of them existed and you saw them.

The only thing I saw from you were the ramblings of an idiot.
This is what I picture you sounding like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gROO7xSTxfY

Misty » 20 Feb 2014 2:03 pm » wrote: The only thing I saw from you were the ramblings of an idiot.

So every single conservative on the old board who cited sources about this was a "rambling idiot?"

Hey, that's believable.

So you've gone from they never existed to you never saw them to insults.

Imbecile.

RichClem » 20 Feb 2014 8:17 am » wrote:No, they "don't exist" because the board is gone.
But many of them existed and you saw them.

I find it rather curious that you seem to think that you know what I saw.
How is that possible?
And the old 'board' is not gone Puss.
As a matter of fact, David R. would very much like for you to come back and revive it again like you did in the past.
He told me so on Facebook.



Get it straight Puss.
You can't use anything from the old 'board' as proof of anything here.
This is a new 'board' and if you assert something as fact, you need to bring new sources to prove it.
No one is buying that old routine.

Misty » 20 Feb 2014 3:14 pm » wrote: I find it rather curious that you seem to think that you know what I saw.
How is that possible?

How about because you commented on those specific sources and told your Democrat Talking Point Lies in response to the facts?

Does that give you a hint?

And the old 'board' is not gone Puss.

Every thread I had with my sources is gone. That's what matters.

Get it straight Puss.
You can't use anything from the old 'board' as proof of anything here.

That's true, and that's why you can lie to your troll heart's content, and you've started already.

"Sources that Bush tried to reform Fannie Mae 13 times? Never existed!"

This is a new 'board' and if you assert something as fact, you need to bring new sources to prove it.
No one is buying that old routine.

Those individuals whose judgment and integrity I trust accept my word.

The usual trolls and moonbats lie and bleat and whine.

Misty » 20 Feb 2014 2:03 pm » wrote: The only thing I saw from you were the ramblings of an idiot.
This is what I picture you sounding like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gROO7xSTxfY

RichClem » 20 Feb 2014 3:57 pm » wrote: Every thread I had with my sources is gone.

Then why have you consistently lied that you posted them here?