mattbk wrote:
Why is that so hard for you to understand?I understand your point just fine, I just disagree with you.
Has she filed that lawsuit yet?
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
I understand your point just fine, I just disagree with you.
Has she filed that lawsuit yet?
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [trail]
[ In reply to ]
trail wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Well, it was fake news.
I'm mostly on your side, and I think I have some credibility in this thread as my BS detection alarms were indicated in my first post.
But in defense of the "news" media, genuine news journalists seemed to have been very careful in their reporting. E.g. there were news stories about that Muckrakers release because the inflammatory release was itself a form of news, but very careful to not corroborate the validity of the claims about Boebert. And beyond that, detail the thin sourcing by the Muckrakers and their own inability to independently corroborate.
So I'd call it "fake," but not news.
I have a bit of a pet peeve for the term being watered down so as to become almost meaningless....
If it turns out to true I am not going to lose a wink of sleep. I dont like wacko politicians. I cringe at most crap the woman says. And you were part of my reference to others calling out the lack of info and possible sketchiness.
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it. Many fake claims have some shred of truth, those are the best lies. It is not all that unbelievable,which is why many want it to be true. But... facts matter. We haven't had any. Just so far unsubstantiated claims...which need to be backed up. The Cawthorne video from them seemed to be drunken kids with a friend helping his crippled friend who then proceed to try to hump his friends head while all giggle wildly with laughter. Weird yes, but it was not what it was purported to be. I'm happy he got voted out. I want all the extremist bullshitters out.... that may not leave too many members of congress.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [Thom]
[ In reply to ]
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Why is that so hard for you to understand?I understand your point just fine, I just disagree with you.
Has she filed that lawsuit yet?
What else do you believe without proof? What else do you continue to believe without proof even after some of the unsubstantiated claims have been shown fake and removed?
Do you believe the Bible is word for word accurate?
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [Thom]
[ In reply to ]
Quote:
Has she filed that lawsuit yet?Is that proof to you? You should stay off a jury.
I dont like Boebert, but I also refuse to wholeheartedly jump on the bandwagon of unsubstantiated anonymous claims, especially after some get refuted. And they were refuted by a liberal source that produced data to show why, not just an opinion. I dont like CNN but at least here they showed why they were calling the claims sketchy. If these shadowy anonymous sources can prove theirs claims, ill laugh right along with you when she gets voted out.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
mattbk wrote:
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Why is that so hard for you to understand?I understand your point just fine, I just disagree with you.
Has she filed that lawsuit yet?
What else do you believe without proof? What else do you continue to believe without proof even after some of the unsubstantiated claims have been shown fake and removed?
Do you believe the Bible is word for word accurate?
Where did I say I believe this as fact? I'm going to say this one more time, and then I'm done. My participation in this thread revolved around your claim that errors in reporting dismiss all reporting from that source. If that were the case, we could only rely on news sources that have never made an error, I'm not aware of any.
Given her history and the history of the muckrakers, I believe the report is somewhat credible. That is strictly my opinion, it may be complete bullshit. I've never asserted anything further.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [Thom]
[ In reply to ]
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Thom wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Why is that so hard for you to understand?I understand your point just fine, I just disagree with you.
Has she filed that lawsuit yet?
What else do you believe without proof? What else do you continue to believe without proof even after some of the unsubstantiated claims have been shown fake and removed?
Do you believe the Bible is word for word accurate?
Where did I say I believe this as fact? I'm going to say this one more time, and then I'm done. My participation in this thread revolved around your claim that errors in reporting dismiss all reporting from that source. If that were the case, we could only rely on news sources that have never made an error, I'm not aware of any.
Given her history and the history of the muckrakers, I believe the report is somewhat credible. That is strictly my opinion, it may be complete bullshit. I've never asserted anything further.
I never said to dismiss it completely, I just asked you to take a grain of salt. What history? The Cawthorne "gay porn" video of drunken laughter?
And, I think it is good he is no longer a representative of our congress. I dont approve of the methods (though I would hope he would have got the boot anyway), but politics and those who participate are largely amoral pieces of shit.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
mattbk wrote:
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it..
Who froths at the mouth? Point those posts out for all of us. It seems, as usual, the forum is more or less in agreement. The article seemed fishy, probably had some truth to it.
Quit being a whiny victim.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
mattbk wrote:
trail wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Well, it was fake news.
I'm mostly on your side, and I think I have some credibility in this thread as my BS detection alarms were indicated in my first post.
But in defense of the "news" media, genuine news journalists seemed to have been very careful in their reporting. E.g. there were news stories about that Muckrakers release because the inflammatory release was itself a form of news, but very careful to not corroborate the validity of the claims about Boebert. And beyond that, detail the thin sourcing by the Muckrakers and their own inability to independently corroborate.
So I'd call it "fake," but not news.
I have a bit of a pet peeve for the term being watered down so as to become almost meaningless....
If it turns out to true I am not going to lose a wink of sleep. I dont like wacko politicians. I cringe at most crap the woman says. And you were part of my reference to others calling out the lack of info and possible sketchiness.
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it. Many fake claims have some shred of truth, those are the best lies. It is not all that unbelievable,which is why many want it to be true. But... facts matter. We haven't had any. Just so far unsubstantiated claims...which need to be backed up. The Cawthorne video from them seemed to be drunken kids with a friend helping his crippled friend who then proceed to try to hump his friends head while all giggle wildly with laughter. Weird yes, but it was not what it was purported to be. I'm happy he got voted out. I want all the extremist bullshitters out.... that may not leave too many members of congress.
Wait what? I didn't hear that part. Dang, Cruz is a freak.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [Nutella]
[ In reply to ]
Nutella wrote:
Dang, Cruz is a freak.Trump said his wife is ugly, so he's gotta get it elsewhere
And $127K was not all at once - $75K for one "undisclosed donation" then another $52K later
"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [Nutella]
[ In reply to ]
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:
trail wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Well, it was fake news.
I'm mostly on your side, and I think I have some credibility in this thread as my BS detection alarms were indicated in my first post.
But in defense of the "news" media, genuine news journalists seemed to have been very careful in their reporting. E.g. there were news stories about that Muckrakers release because the inflammatory release was itself a form of news, but very careful to not corroborate the validity of the claims about Boebert. And beyond that, detail the thin sourcing by the Muckrakers and their own inability to independently corroborate.
So I'd call it "fake," but not news.
I have a bit of a pet peeve for the term being watered down so as to become almost meaningless....
If it turns out to true I am not going to lose a wink of sleep. I dont like wacko politicians. I cringe at most crap the woman says. And you were part of my reference to others calling out the lack of info and possible sketchiness.
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it. Many fake claims have some shred of truth, those are the best lies. It is not all that unbelievable,which is why many want it to be true. But... facts matter. We haven't had any. Just so far unsubstantiated claims...which need to be backed up. The Cawthorne video from them seemed to be drunken kids with a friend helping his crippled friend who then proceed to try to hump his friends head while all giggle wildly with laughter. Weird yes, but it was not what it was purported to be. I'm happy he got voted out. I want all the extremist bullshitters out.... that may not leave too many members of congress.
Wait what? I didn't hear that part. Dang, Cruz is a freak.
From the article:
Quote:
Cruz's big contributions weren't made during Boebert's primary The super PAC claimed on its website last week that Boebert was introduced to Cruz by a wealthy and politically connected escort client before she began her run for Congress in 2019 -- and the super PAC then claimed, "When Boebert announced her campaign for Congress in December 2019, Senator Cruz donated at least $136,250.00 to the Boebert Campaign."
Boebert spokesman Stout said Boebert has never had an escort client and that she never spoke to Cruz or met Cruz until after she won the 2020 primary. Cruz's office declined to comment for this article.
Regardless of when Cruz and Boebert first spoke or met, the super PAC's claim about the timing of the donation was misleading at best. Cruz's 20 for 20 Victory Fund, which backed more than 20 Republican House candidates in 2020, made its contributions to Boebert's campaign in September 2020, more than two months after she won the Republican nomination in a district where the Democratic candidate was competitive. The super PAC's wording -- "When Boebert announced her campaign for Congress in December 2019" -- at least left open the impression that Cruz's donation had come when she was an obscure candidate in a party primary.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
mattbk wrote:
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:
trail wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Well, it was fake news.
I'm mostly on your side, and I think I have some credibility in this thread as my BS detection alarms were indicated in my first post.
But in defense of the "news" media, genuine news journalists seemed to have been very careful in their reporting. E.g. there were news stories about that Muckrakers release because the inflammatory release was itself a form of news, but very careful to not corroborate the validity of the claims about Boebert. And beyond that, detail the thin sourcing by the Muckrakers and their own inability to independently corroborate.
So I'd call it "fake," but not news.
I have a bit of a pet peeve for the term being watered down so as to become almost meaningless....
If it turns out to true I am not going to lose a wink of sleep. I dont like wacko politicians. I cringe at most crap the woman says. And you were part of my reference to others calling out the lack of info and possible sketchiness.
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it. Many fake claims have some shred of truth, those are the best lies. It is not all that unbelievable,which is why many want it to be true. But... facts matter. We haven't had any. Just so far unsubstantiated claims...which need to be backed up. The Cawthorne video from them seemed to be drunken kids with a friend helping his crippled friend who then proceed to try to hump his friends head while all giggle wildly with laughter. Weird yes, but it was not what it was purported to be. I'm happy he got voted out. I want all the extremist bullshitters out.... that may not leave too many members of congress.
Wait what? I didn't hear that part. Dang, Cruz is a freak.
From the article:
Quote:
Cruz's big contributions weren't made during Boebert's primary The super PAC claimed on its website last week that Boebert was introduced to Cruz by a wealthy and politically connected escort client before she began her run for Congress in 2019 -- and the super PAC then claimed, "When Boebert announced her campaign for Congress in December 2019, Senator Cruz donated at least $136,250.00 to the Boebert Campaign."
Boebert spokesman Stout said Boebert has never had an escort client and that she never spoke to Cruz or met Cruz until after she won the 2020 primary. Cruz's office declined to comment for this article.
Regardless of when Cruz and Boebert first spoke or met, the super PAC's claim about the timing of the donation was misleading at best. Cruz's 20 for 20 Victory Fund, which backed more than 20 Republican House candidates in 2020, made its contributions to Boebert's campaign in September 2020, more than two months after she won the Republican nomination in a district where the Democratic candidate was competitive. The super PAC's wording -- "When Boebert announced her campaign for Congress in December 2019" -- at least left open the impression that Cruz's donation had come when she was an obscure candidate in a party primary.
I am a bit confused, I don't see the mention of him paying for sex. It appears he donated to her campaign because she is batshit crazy. Today's GOP loves batshit crazy.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [ajthomas]
[ In reply to ]
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it..
Who froths at the mouth? Point those posts out for all of us. It seems, as usual, the forum is more or less in agreement. The article seemed fishy, probably had some truth to it.
Quit being a whiny victim.
As usual you come off a pompous swim coach. This fucking thread swim coach. Read it. Frothing at the mouth over unsubstantiated shit. Happens in many other threads. Do your own research, I'm not your secretary...
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
mattbk wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it..
Who froths at the mouth? Point those posts out for all of us. It seems, as usual, the forum is more or less in agreement. The article seemed fishy, probably had some truth to it.
Quit being a whiny victim.
As usual you come off a pompous swim coach. This fucking thread swim coach. Read it. Frothing at the mouth over unsubstantiated shit. Happens in many other threads. Do your own research, I'm not your secretary...
Well, I read the entire thread again.
There has been frothing all right. But it has all come from you.
From the very beginning everyone has been skeptical. No one bought it completely. The closest you come is some people saying they don't care, she is a POS and spreads lies so she gets what she deserves.
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
mattbk wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it..
Who froths at the mouth? Point those posts out for all of us. It seems, as usual, the forum is more or less in agreement. The article seemed fishy, probably had some truth to it.
Quit being a whiny victim.
As usual you come off a pompous swim coach. This fucking thread swim coach. Read it. Frothing at the mouth over unsubstantiated shit. Happens in many other threads. Do your own research, I'm not your secretary...
LMAO.
Read your post.
Tell us how you got rabies.
Is calling me “swim coach” an insult? I wish I was a swim coach.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [ajthomas]
[ In reply to ]
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it..
Who froths at the mouth? Point those posts out for all of us. It seems, as usual, the forum is more or less in agreement. The article seemed fishy, probably had some truth to it.
Quit being a whiny victim.
As usual you come off a pompous swim coach. This fucking thread swim coach. Read it. Frothing at the mouth over unsubstantiated shit. Happens in many other threads. Do your own research, I'm not your secretary...
LMAO.
Read your post.
Tell us how you got rabies.
Is calling me “swim coach” an insult? I wish I was a swim coach.
You, you , you filthy rotten . . . Swim coach?
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [chriskal]
[ In reply to ]
chriskal wrote:
You, you , you filthy rotten . . . Swim coach?
Suffer Well.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [ajthomas]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [Nutella]
[ In reply to ]
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Nutella wrote:
mattbk wrote:
trail wrote:
mattbk wrote:
Well, it was fake news.
I'm mostly on your side, and I think I have some credibility in this thread as my BS detection alarms were indicated in my first post.
But in defense of the "news" media, genuine news journalists seemed to have been very careful in their reporting. E.g. there were news stories about that Muckrakers release because the inflammatory release was itself a form of news, but very careful to not corroborate the validity of the claims about Boebert. And beyond that, detail the thin sourcing by the Muckrakers and their own inability to independently corroborate.
So I'd call it "fake," but not news.
I have a bit of a pet peeve for the term being watered down so as to become almost meaningless....
If it turns out to true I am not going to lose a wink of sleep. I dont like wacko politicians. I cringe at most crap the woman says. And you were part of my reference to others calling out the lack of info and possible sketchiness.
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it. Many fake claims have some shred of truth, those are the best lies. It is not all that unbelievable,which is why many want it to be true. But... facts matter. We haven't had any. Just so far unsubstantiated claims...which need to be backed up. The Cawthorne video from them seemed to be drunken kids with a friend helping his crippled friend who then proceed to try to hump his friends head while all giggle wildly with laughter. Weird yes, but it was not what it was purported to be. I'm happy he got voted out. I want all the extremist bullshitters out.... that may not leave too many members of congress.
Wait what? I didn't hear that part. Dang, Cruz is a freak.
From the article:
Quote:
Cruz's big contributions weren't made during Boebert's primary The super PAC claimed on its website last week that Boebert was introduced to Cruz by a wealthy and politically connected escort client before she began her run for Congress in 2019 -- and the super PAC then claimed, "When Boebert announced her campaign for Congress in December 2019, Senator Cruz donated at least $136,250.00 to the Boebert Campaign."
Boebert spokesman Stout said Boebert has never had an escort client and that she never spoke to Cruz or met Cruz until after she won the 2020 primary. Cruz's office declined to comment for this article.
Regardless of when Cruz and Boebert first spoke or met, the super PAC's claim about the timing of the donation was misleading at best. Cruz's 20 for 20 Victory Fund, which backed more than 20 Republican House candidates in 2020, made its contributions to Boebert's campaign in September 2020, more than two months after she won the Republican nomination in a district where the Democratic candidate was competitive. The super PAC's wording -- "When Boebert announced her campaign for Congress in December 2019" -- at least left open the impression that Cruz's donation had come when she was an obscure candidate in a party primary.
I am a bit confused, I don't see the mention of him paying for sex. It appears he donated to her campaign because she is batshit crazy. Today's GOP loves batshit crazy.
That was the analysis from refuting their claims of payoff. The second aspect was implied by the Muckrakers report as well as posters in this thread, even alleging she was blackmailing him after being introduced by a client of hers related to the Koch family.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [ajthomas]
[ In reply to ]
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it..
Who froths at the mouth? Point those posts out for all of us. It seems, as usual, the forum is more or less in agreement. The article seemed fishy, probably had some truth to it.
Quit being a whiny victim.
As usual you come off a pompous swim coach. This fucking thread swim coach. Read it. Frothing at the mouth over unsubstantiated shit. Happens in many other threads. Do your own research, I'm not your secretary...
LMAO.
Read your post.
Tell us how you got rabies.
Is calling me “swim coach” an insult? I wish I was a swim coach.
Every post of yours towards me is a jab. You make antagonistic, shit talking, condescending remarks that allude to you thinking you are more intelligent than you are. Stick to your expertise, swimming. You are quite knowledgeable in that arena.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [j p o]
[ In reply to ]
j p o wrote:
mattbk wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it..
Who froths at the mouth? Point those posts out for all of us. It seems, as usual, the forum is more or less in agreement. The article seemed fishy, probably had some truth to it.
Quit being a whiny victim.
As usual you come off a pompous swim coach. This fucking thread swim coach. Read it. Frothing at the mouth over unsubstantiated shit. Happens in many other threads. Do your own research, I'm not your secretary...
Well, I read the entire thread again.
There has been frothing all right. But it has all come from you.
From the very beginning everyone has been skeptical. No one bought it completely. The closest you come is some people saying they don't care, she is a POS and spreads lies so she gets what she deserves.
You might want to check the definition of that word... many on here were so excited at the possibilities. I find it pathetic that this flies only when a certain party is targeted. Target the other party with that little of anonymous info and a swarm of posters for that party would zoom in and shut the thread down...
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
mattbk wrote:
Every post of yours towards me is a jab.
This the LR... every post is a jab.
Suffer Well.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
mattbk wrote:
j p o wrote:
mattbk wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it..
Who froths at the mouth? Point those posts out for all of us. It seems, as usual, the forum is more or less in agreement. The article seemed fishy, probably had some truth to it.
Quit being a whiny victim.
As usual you come off a pompous swim coach. This fucking thread swim coach. Read it. Frothing at the mouth over unsubstantiated shit. Happens in many other threads. Do your own research, I'm not your secretary...
Well, I read the entire thread again.
There has been frothing all right. But it has all come from you.
From the very beginning everyone has been skeptical. No one bought it completely. The closest you come is some people saying they don't care, she is a POS and spreads lies so she gets what she deserves.
You might want to check the definition of that word... many on here were so excited at the possibilities. I find it pathetic that this flies only when a certain party is targeted. Target the other party with that little of anonymous info and a swarm of posters for that party would zoom in and shut the thread down...
Yeah. I don't need to. Everyone was skeptical of the reliability of the report. But nice attempt at a redirect.
Now you should look up "frothing at the mouth." And I was even giving you some leeway. I let you include being "excited at the possibilities" when the reality is "frothing at the mouth" means to be angry. And really there was only one who said they got too excited.
You keep making the assertion and it isn't backed up by evidence. If it is there, point it out. I know, I know, you aren't my secretary. That is nonsense. You are accusing people of something, back it up.
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [j p o]
[ In reply to ]
j p o wrote:
mattbk wrote:
j p o wrote:
mattbk wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
mattbk wrote:
I just find it hypocritical that this site can froth at the mouth over unsubstantiated claims while immediately shutting them down in other cases. The difference seems to be political leaning. However Boebert is a bit special, I understand that. I have zero plans to defend her. Though I would hope more would pull back once some major claims were refuted, such as the timeliness of said hush money from Cruz where they claimed Cruz paid her $127k for prostitution.
I would guess there may be some truth to some of it..
Who froths at the mouth? Point those posts out for all of us. It seems, as usual, the forum is more or less in agreement. The article seemed fishy, probably had some truth to it.
Quit being a whiny victim.
As usual you come off a pompous swim coach. This fucking thread swim coach. Read it. Frothing at the mouth over unsubstantiated shit. Happens in many other threads. Do your own research, I'm not your secretary...
Well, I read the entire thread again.
There has been frothing all right. But it has all come from you.
From the very beginning everyone has been skeptical. No one bought it completely. The closest you come is some people saying they don't care, she is a POS and spreads lies so she gets what she deserves.
You might want to check the definition of that word... many on here were so excited at the possibilities. I find it pathetic that this flies only when a certain party is targeted. Target the other party with that little of anonymous info and a swarm of posters for that party would zoom in and shut the thread down...
Yeah. I don't need to. Everyone was skeptical of the reliability of the report. But nice attempt at a redirect.
Now you should look up "frothing at the mouth." And I was even giving you some leeway. I let you include being "excited at the possibilities" when the reality is "frothing at the mouth" means to be angry. And really there was only one who said they got too excited.
You keep making the assertion and it isn't backed up by evidence. If it is there, point it out. I know, I know, you aren't my secretary. That is nonsense. You are accusing people of something, back it up.
If you don't see the difference between the behavior here vs anonymous accusations against a lefty thread... I don't know what to tell you. Switch the political parties and this thread doesn't make it past a half page...
Since you need help, here you go with filtering... I even hyperlinked them which I shouldn't have bothered. Make me work, I should have given you some of your own...
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7761921#p7761921
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7761939#p7761939
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7762050#p7762050
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7762059#p7762059
Me calling out the guy who literally says he is getting too excited over this:
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7762096#p7762096
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7762227#p7762227
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7762240#p7762240
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7762251#p7762251
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7762277#p7762277
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7762288#p7762288
Then I posted the article that send Thom into a tizzy...
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7767855#p7767855
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=7767990#p7767990
Re: Muckrakers -the Boebert edition [mattbk]
[ In reply to ]
This post convinced me you are not frothing at the mouth.
Suffer Well.
Suffer Well.
mattbk wrote:
Then I posted the article that send Thom into a tizzy...
Thom wrote:
Why are you treating this like it's a complete exoneration? Their report was sloppy and irresponsible but they are standing by the main points. It will be easy to judge going forward. Boebert has said she is going to file a suit, we can just wait and see if that ever happens.Is this really your definition of a, "tizzy"? Really?
