Reply With Quote
I've provided you all the details you need and as his repertoire Chumpy has provided nothing to support his claim. It's not my problem you see the world in chump-colored glasses....
IIRC, the FCC doesn't regulate cable, so it's more than likely an internal slap-on-the-wrist from the bosses.
The big stink I read yesterday was Joe's diatribe a few years back on the FCC's lack of regulation on Janet Jackson and random cursing on live TV.
I've provided you all the details you need and as his repertoire Chumpy has provided nothing to support his claim. It's not my problem you see the world in chump-colored glasses....
Remember, you didn't provide anything in your first post.
All the details we need for what?
What exactly are you saying?
Wrong-o again. You go on these politically-motivated witchhunts, never bothering to disclose whatever facts you think support your position and then you offer limp-wristed chastizing for those who call you on your lack of factual support. It's one of my favorite traditions here in the Political Forum -- it's right up there with your relentless unwillingness to actually reveal a theory about 9/11 because you're concerned about the consequences of such a revelation.
I've provided you all the details you need and as his repertoire Chumpy has provided nothing to support his claim. It's not my problem you see the world in chump-colored glasses....
Frankly, I see the world by looking for facts and find that details are actually fairly significant in weeding through speculation to reach the facts. That's true for me even if you think half the population can't be bothered with details. In this instance, you're insinuating something (what, I'm not quite sure) and arguing that details (which might undermine your insinuation) are irrelevant. If you think something happened and have details to support what you think, then you've got a fact. Otherwise, you've got idle insinuation that has no real relationship to fact. Frankly, if your acting on political motivation and claiming that you're just acting like your political opponents do, then you're stooping to their level. Don't you want to be better than that?
it's right up there with your relentless unwillingness to actually reveal a theory about 9/11 because you're concerned about the consequences of such a revelation.
I've stated over and over again that the reason I won't speculate on 911 is because I am waiting for a real investigation to be conducted, which may still be years away, but go ahead and cherry-pick what you want to hear...
I'm not trying to prove anything, all I'm saying is Joe Scarbrough likely got a pass on this controversial cover-up because he was a Republican in a red state...Frankly, I see the world by looking for facts and find that details are actually fairly significant in weeding through speculation to reach the facts. That's true for me even if you think half the population can't be bothered with details. In this instance, you're insinuating something (what, I'm not quite sure) and arguing that details (which might undermine your insinuation) are irrelevant. If you think something happened and have details to support what you think, then you've got a fact. Otherwise, you've got idle insinuation that has no real relationship to fact. Frankly, if your acting on political motivation and claiming that you're just acting like your political opponents do, then you're stooping to their level. Don't you want to be better than that?
How can he get a pass if there is nothing at all to link him to her death, which was ruled accidental, other than being her employer?
.....Well, because it did happen in his office for one, the Medical examiner who determined the cause of death has been fined in two states for lying on medical reports for two.....but keep acting like there's nothing there....
Is there anything else there?
What shred of evidence suggests that Scarborough might have had anything to do with this girl's death? If I keel over at my desk this afternoon, is my boss immediately a reasonable suspect in my death?
Only if there is a chance that this isn't the first time you've been keeling at your bosses desk I suppose...
So since Scarborough was in DC at the time of the death in his Fort Walton office, dan is saying his is 780 miles long.
Oddly enough, that isn't the most preposterous thing he has posted here.
Joe didn't get a free pass. Move on!!
You have to admit there is something highly su ious about this girl mysteriously dying in Joe's office and the medical examiner being fined in two states for lying on medical reports.......I hate to say it but usually when there is smoke there's fire with politicians. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Joe had more to do with her death than we know.
There's nothing highly su ious about some incredibly weak cir stantial evidence.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
