15yds4gibberish Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 Four incorrect/misleading things in a 3 sentence post. Pretty decent efficiency rating. I'm just gonna highlight one: 23 minutes ago, Warrior said: ...Ive never disputed Top Secret ... 👇 On 12/15/2022 at 3:50 AM, Warrior said: ...With the 2022 midterm elections now in the rearview mirror, the Washington Post quietly reported that documents obtained from the FBI’s raid on Mar-A-Lago did not include “top secret” intelligence.... 🙄 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 16 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said: Four incorrect/misleading things in a 3 sentence post. Pretty decent efficiency rating. I'm just gonna highlight one: 👇 🙄 Hmm…that was copied from the article. What I’ve said is No Nuclear docs. Here’s the link if you’d like to read for yourself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/14/trump-motive-mar-a-lago-documents/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
15yds4gibberish Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 15 minutes ago, Warrior said: Hmm…that was copied from the article. What I’ve said is No Nuclear docs. Here’s the link if you’d like to read for yourself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/14/trump-motive-mar-a-lago-documents/ The WAPO didn't say no nuke docs. That's either your words, or some article you cut and past without citation. In your link to a Nov 14 WAPO article above, WAPO continued to stand by their nuke doc story: . As of this morning WAPO continues to stand by their story. You continue to try to claim differently. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBigBlack Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 25 minutes ago, Warrior said: Hmm…that was copied from the article. What I’ve said is No Nuclear docs. Here’s the link if you’d like to read for yourself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/14/trump-motive-mar-a-lago-documents/ He just posted an article from four hours ago that shits alllll over your claims. ———————————————————- Just two days ago — Warrior: This article proves WaPo lied because it doesn’t mention nukes! GBB: By not mentioning the nukes they’re only doubling down and standing by the initial report. Warrior: Lol you’re so stupid you’re spinning things that’s so stupid and that’s not what the article says at all! They are trying to back out of the lie! Why do you think it’s being done so quietly!? (Just 36 hours later) WaPo: We’re doubling down and standing by our initial reporting and are again stating that Trump had nuclear docs. And we’re mentioning it five mother fucking times in this article so the slower folks can have a chance to catch up. (We’re talking about you, “Warrior”) ——————————————————— Hey remember the time that happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 Round and round they go! the result? NOTHING! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBigBlack Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 51 minutes ago, Warrior said: Hmm…that was copied from the article. What I’ve said is No Nuclear docs. Here’s the link if you’d like to read for yourself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/14/trump-motive-mar-a-lago-documents/ So you used the article to prove what is true while also agreeing that the author is lying about the very topic being discussed. Brilliant. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 1 hour ago, 15yds4gibberish said: The WAPO didn't say no nuke docs. That's either your words, or some article you cut and past without citation. In your link to a Nov 14 WAPO article above, WAPO continued to stand by their nuke doc story: . As of this morning WAPO continues to stand by their story. You continue to try to claim differently. What does it say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBigBlack Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 8 minutes ago, Warrior said: What does it say? The WaPo is explicitly saying the exact opposite of what you claim they said. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 My point isn’t difficult that you boys can’t seem to comprehend. Aug and Sept the leak was “Nuclear Docs” found in raid at Mar-a-Lago! Everyone ran with, news outlets and TV. Without anything to substantiate. Now we have leaks out being reported with Zero mention of Nuclear anything. What’s being reported is what all presidents take, momentos and souvenirs. You can believe either if you choose but if we’ve learned anything the last 6 years it’s many of these “leaks” have turned out to be completely false. And that is what I believe to be true and supported by the most recent leak and lack of talk of Nuclear docs since the leak in Sept. You boys can choose to believe what you wish. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 1 hour ago, GoBigBlack said: The WaPo is explicitly saying the exact opposite of what you claim they said. What is opposite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBigBlack Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 7 minutes ago, Warrior said: What is opposite? You said The Washington Post admitted the leak was made up. The opposite would be them saying they didn’t make up the leak. That’s what happened this morning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Warrior said: My point isn’t difficult that you boys can’t seem to comprehend. Aug and Sept the leak was “Nuclear Docs” found in raid at Mar-a-Lago! Everyone ran with, news outlets and TV. Without anything to substantiate. Now we have leaks out being reported with Zero mention of Nuclear anything. What’s being reported is what all presidents take, momentos and souvenirs. You can believe either if you choose but if we’ve learned anything the last 6 years it’s many of these “leaks” have turned out to be completely false. And that is what I believe to be true and supported by the most recent leak and lack of talk of Nuclear docs since the leak in Sept. You boys can choose to believe what you wish. LOL..so since there were no new articles about this story it never happened because of "lack of talk"?!...got you...maybe one day you'll make some kind of sense and pay off on the bet you lost....🙄 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueliner Posted December 21, 2022 Report Share Posted December 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Warrior said: What is opposite? These goofy mofos will just keep spinning and twisting shit until nobody knows which way is up. That’s the liberal/establishment way. If ya can’t dazzle them with brilliance (which clearly they can’t), then (attempt to) baffle them with bullshit. Its actually quite comical. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 1 hour ago, DBP66 said: LOL..so since there were no new articles about this story it never happened because of "lack of talk"?!...got you...maybe one day you'll make some kind of sense and pay off on the bet you lost....🙄 Not what I’m saying but nice 1. Tell you what DP - I’ll let BBC extend his bet for infinity. If ever it’s confirmed Nuclear Docs were at Mar-a-Lago I’ll drop him 1G. His side is off we know he ain’t paying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBigBlack Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 29 minutes ago, Warrior said: Not what I’m saying but nice 1. Tell you what DP - I’ll let BBC extend his bet for infinity. If ever it’s confirmed Nuclear Docs were at Mar-a-Lago I’ll drop him 1G. His side is off we know he ain’t paying. You just admitted it’s a possibility nuclear docs are confirmed, so why the fuck would I pay you and how could you know if I’d pay? 3 hours ago, Warrior said: My point isn’t difficult that you boys can’t seem to comprehend. We all understand what your point is. What we don’t understand is why you think it is one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 12 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said: You just admitted it’s a possibility nuclear docs are confirmed, so why the fuck would I pay you and how could you know if I’d pay? We all understand what your point is. What we don’t understand is why you think it is one. Reading is fundamental, at no point did I I admit Nuclear docs were found. I said “if” ever. Your really are stupid, I keep thinking your joking but you keep proving me wrong. Again, I’ll give until infinity to show proof that nuclear docs were recovered at Mar-a-Lago and I’ll break you off 1G. It ain’t hard. And if it never happens you still don’t have to pay pay anything. We know you weren’t anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBigBlack Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 6 minutes ago, Warrior said: Reading is fundamental, at no point did I I admit Nuclear docs were found. I said “if” ever. Your really are stupid, I keep thinking your joking but you keep proving me wrong. What do you think “possibility” means? You’re drunk again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 3 minutes ago, Warrior said: Reading is fundamental, at no point did I I admit Nuclear docs were found. I said “if” ever. Your really are stupid, I keep thinking your joking but you keep proving me wrong. Again, I’ll give until infinity to show proof that nuclear docs were recovered at Mar-a-Lago and I’ll break you off 1G. It ain’t hard. And if it never happens you still don’t have to pay pay anything. We know you weren’t anyway. so I guess you need to see pictures of stolen top-secret files?....you think that will ever happen??...it's the Washington Post vs. you...they ran the story and didn't redact it so they stand by what they wrote....and that doesn't work for you because you don't like the Washington Post?!?...LOL.....you're ridiculous...🤡 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 18 minutes ago, DBP66 said: so I guess you need to see pictures of stolen top-secret files?....you think that will ever happen??...it's the Washington Post vs. you...they ran the story and didn't redact it so they stand by what they wrote....and that doesn't work for you because you don't like the Washington Post?!?...LOL.....you're ridiculous...🤡 Re-read the story, the whole story is “sources say”. They aren’t accountable for unnamed sources so nothing to retract. Damn, I’m giving a bet GBBC can’t lose prop and you idiots are still bitching. If at any point nuclear docs are verified I’ll pay a G. It’s not a trick question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 25 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said: What do you think “possibility” means? You’re drunk again. You are just willfully stupid, it’s a joke right? You can’t honestly be this dumb..it’s for show right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 28 minutes ago, Warrior said: Re-read the story, the whole story is “sources say”. They aren’t accountable for unnamed sources so nothing to retract. Damn, I’m giving a bet GBBC can’t lose prop and you idiots are still bitching. If at any point nuclear docs are verified I’ll pay a G. It’s not a trick question. every newspaper article you read in your entire life was based on "sources" some are named some aren't...it doesn't mean the story is untrue if a source is not named like you claim.....the story is "verified" by the simple fact the Washington Post ran the story...do you know better than them??...NO...so you lost the bet,,,,.what are you missing?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 7 minutes ago, DBP66 said: every newspaper article you read in your entire life was based on "sources" some are naned some aren't...it doesn't mean the story is untrue if a source is not named like you claim.....the story is "verified" by the simple fact the Washington Post ran the story...do you know better than them??...NO...so you lost the bet,,,,.what are you missing?? If you believe what you just posted you’re clueless. So every news outlet that writes an article is 💯 % true until proven false or just the outlets you agree with? See how that works. The media is the worst for writing untruths on both sides today. Wake up son at some point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 1 minute ago, Warrior said: If you believe what you just posted you’re clueless. So every news outlet that writes an article is 💯 % true until proven false or just the outlets you agree with? See how that works. The media is the worst for writing untruths on both sides today. Wake up son at some point. a mind is a terrible thing to waste!....🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 8 minutes ago, DBP66 said: a mind is a terrible thing to waste!....🤡 We finally agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted December 22, 2022 Report Share Posted December 22, 2022 @HawgGoneIt PLEASE PLEASE LOCK THIS CIRCLE JERK THREAD. ENOUGH ALREADY JESUS F’n Christ! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.