Reply With Quote
it's what advertisers want, so it plays.
Thought they were gonna stop showing the pics of these mass shooters? Just another I lie I guess.
it's what advertisers want, so it plays.
Good thing "the supreme court" ruled that corporations have individual cons utional rights.
Who told you that
There was a campaign / news announcements on this, sometime back. Sorry you missed it, cuck.
Should be easy for you to find then
If I was a LexisNexis subscriber, maybe. But I'm not. And your lack of awareness is not my problem either way.
You can't Google it?
Lol your whiny thread that's about to drop into oblivion isn't my problem either
You can't Google it? You don't give a in the first place. You think I'm gonna cater to a cuck?
Sh** I called your cuckitude out before I even read this (). Acknowledging reality is not whiny, bro. Learn the diff.
lol Spurtacular meltdown
lol imagine is Spurtacular had to find an insult that wasn’t “cuck”, whatever passes for his brain would immediately melt.
#StillDesperateForAW
#StillWithHerToo
You stop putting guns in their hands and they’ll stop showing pictures of them.
Go on the record and say this movement never existed. That goes for all the chumpettes. Otherwise, you gots are just barking for attention (Par.)
The usual per par route the typical spurt thread goes down.#StillDesperateForAW
#StillWithHerToo
He's got like four go-to tactics that apparently always lead to victory for him, whatever that means.
It's your barking thread.
#victory
OP makes a claim.
OP is asked about claim.
OP melts down.
Are you saying the media never made this claim?
Yes or no.
I put forth something that I had previously observed. I don't pull sh** out of my ass; and I don't make threads based on the little dogs like you that do "bark" as if I could give a . So, what's your problem? That you don't pay attention? Not my problem.
This isn’t hard, Simple Jack. Your side takes the guns out of mass shooters hands, and the media won’t have mass shooters to glorify.
I'm saying the idea has been around for years but I don't remember a single media outlet's committing to it.
So I'm saying "the media" never committed to it.
You made the positive claim they did, so prove it.
I guess your next tactic would be to demand I prove a negative.
How does this absolve the media from glorifying the media (against their promise) in the meantime?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
