If you say so. I will call you a coward. I will say that you are afraid to admit that Trump is the frontrunner and it makes sense to make that comparison first. I think you're afraid to admit that I pointed out a mistake.
And no I'm pompous, dip , half the schticks around here are built around it including yours. Quit whining and be a ing man.
LOL I'm not whining. I'm calling you out as an ignorant pompous ass. You bring zero to the table. Of course Trump is the front runner. So what? I still saw biased moderators. If it's so normal name one time last Saturday night where the debate moderator asked Martin or Bernie "Hillary said (pick something stupid like the famous Benghazi "movie" reaction cover up) how do you respond to that?"
Oh that one got through. You are adding new to argue on merit. I'm not going to argue your additional rationalizations.
You were still foolish for claiming that asking them to compare themselves to the GOP frontrunner was partisan to anything other than reality.
On a side note there was a Politico article stating that the GOP establishment money cabal is considering a third candidate should Trump hijack their election. My dream is that and a similar fracture between Sanders and Hillary.
I nail your ass by comparing how different the two debates were with partisan moderators and you call it "new stuff"? Were you really too stupid to make that comparison yourself?
Now fantasies about nailing my ass. You're melting down pretty hard here.
I nail your ass by comparing how different the two debates were with partisan moderators and you call it "new stuff"? Were you really too stupid to make that comparison yourself?
You made new arguments. I mean you're barely coherent here. This shouldn't be that hard.
Damn you are stupid. Got plenty of vacuous bluster though.
I simply pointed out that it wasn't politically biased to compare the candidates to the GOP frontrunner. I mean if you really want to take that position then you should take issue with you and your type's fixation on Hillary now that Thanks Obama! is out the door.
I mean vacuous is an interesting choice of words considering all you did in your post was insult me. You throwing bluster back at me tells me it works when I use it. What you don't seem to understand is the difference is the truth.
I simply pointed out that there is a clear front runner in the Democratic side as well and the moderator partisan tactic that was used in the Republican debate was nowhere to be seen in the Democratic debate and I watched most of both of them.
So your partisan bull is just that...ignorant bluster.
And I simply pointed out that in all debates it is the common tactic to have the candidates compare themselves with the oppositions front runner and there is nothing partisan about it as they've been doing it since the beginning.
My point was never that you were partisan. I will say that you likely got angry reflexively watching the debate because you have poor self control. I will say that you lack credibility.
That's what you said. You were complaining that the CNN debate asked candidates to compare themselves to the frontrunner on issues saying that it was leading questions because they quoted Trump.
That's pigheaded stupid. Bravo.
-
See more at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/id....PHeXCV3l.dpuf
When I ask people who say they "hate welfare" what welfare is, I tend to get the internet equivalent of blank looks.
There is a reason for that. People who tend to "hate welfare" have no ing clue what "welfare" is, or who gets it. None.
I have evidence, peer-reviewed evidence, to support that. Odd are overwhelming that if you are like vy65 and so many others, you are literally clueless about welfare.
So when people start asking me for policies that appear to be based on ignorance... I tend to be skeptical.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
