ABC & NBC debunk the nutty bitch's testimony today...another day of nothing from the partisan peanut gallery.

Salty rescued Bambino too.......at least for a while.


The conspiracy theory that Salty and BO are the same, or use the same computer, is alive and well. Could we have some proof it is not true ?

How’s your fantasy world treating you? I’ll repeat it for ya, you have no clue what you’re talking about. It is entertains to read you parroting ole Tucker though. You might mix in some Ingriham or Hannity as well so it’s not so obvious. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

So the numbnuts gal, over heard someone recounting a conversation that they overheard someone talking about another person. Except the person who supposedly said things in the first place was not present on that day in the first place. So hearsay about hearsay about someone that was not even there. Gots to be either Clarence Darrow to win with that or someone who (Liz) brought forth that testimony (story teller) is an idiot.

That’s not accurate.

It sounds more like WYID overheard something, and is trying to remember what he heard, and repeating it.

It sounds more like WYID overheard something, and is trying to remember what he heard, and repeating it. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Ya'll ain't much on the reading and comprehension stuff.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

+1


WORD

^^^

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Hedo is monickered Foxhole Forever for a reason. He's about 75 years old and retired in Florida.

His channel is stuck on stupid.

It seems so straight forward. You read a story online. It has what you think is factual information or you think the information directly refutes information posted as facts in another post.
Regardless, it is almost a certainty that one side or the other will challenge it. Why wouldn't a person provide a link or the source of the article? With all the claims, both true and false, of a lack of reading comprehension or someone misrepresenting the information contained in the article, why wouldn't they show the source?

One reason is the person knows it doesn't support his claim.
Some claim they don't want to do work for someone else. Which is pure bullshit.
Another method is the demand someone prove a negative. A prime example of this is the big lie. Trumpys claim it can't be proven election didn't occur but can't/won't provide evidence it did.

And now the disclaimer that no significant statistical election fraud occurred.

Here is a hint for future reference Black man. If you are going to tell somebody that they don't know what they are talking about, correct them, tell them why they are wrong.Correcting someone and explaining why they are wrong doesn't work without providing proof you are actually correcting them and factually explaining why they are wrong. With all the claims that are made about someone lying, it only requires common sense that you would supply proof (in the form of examples and links) to back your claims of dishonesty on someone's part or to back up a claim you have made showing the evidence that supports your claim. In your future posts, you will continue to use what you consider to be common knowledge (without proof it is anything other than your opinion) instead of common sense. Common sense that you should be providing proof. Use that legal acumen you are supposed to have.


I just don't know if he isn't smart enough to do it or he is so angry he can't think straight.

Originally Posted by HedonistForever