Media Bias

[Brian Peacock]

There are only two reasons for doing exercise: one is because you enjoy it; the other is to boast about it. I just don't have any need to boast about it.

[Cunt]

Sometimes I wonder if you're the only non-fat, physically fit bloke on the planet.

You would be wrong.

I'm fat, and out of shape.

Sometimes I wonder why you are so reluctant to engage honestly on this topic.

There are only two reasons for doing exercise: one is because you enjoy it; the other is to boast about it. I just don't have any need to boast about it.

Well, if that is your idea of honest engagement, I'll return the courtesy.

[JimC]

This Crowder guy seems to be quite the Jim Jones figure for Cunt...

If he offers you purple Kool-Aid, don't drink it...

[Brian Peacock]

Sometimes I wonder if you're the only non-fat, physically fit bloke on the planet.

You would be wrong.

I'm fat, and out of shape.

Sometimes I wonder why you are so reluctant to engage honestly on this topic.

There two reasons for doing exercise: one is because you enjoy it; the other is to boast about it. I just don't have any need to boast about it.

Well, if that is your idea of honest engagement, I'll return the courtesy.

Like I said, I just don't feel the need to 'engage' on why you think you're fat and out of shape.

[Sean Hayden]

Who runs 20 km a week and is fat and out of shape? I always thought those ads were fibbing.

[Joe]

I don't know why, but this whole exercise fixation puts me in mind of my favorite fitness instruction video.

[Cunt]

Like I said, I just don't feel the need to 'engage' on why you think you're fat and out of shape.

How very courteous of you.

[JimC]

Like I said, I just don't feel the need to 'engage' on why you think you're fat and out of shape.

How very courteous of you.

When you use sarcasm in your replies so often, it is hard to pick when you are making an honest, non-sarcastic reply.

[Cunt]

You mean him or me?

[JimC]

It was you I quoted, so work it out...

[Joe]

[Joe]

Bump all you want, Joe. Just note that you can follow me around, misrepresent my view, and never have to address real facts, like public databases.

Because why work to find 'enough' fraud, when it would go against your favoured candidate.

It's a reasonable question Cunt, and a natural continuation of the conversation we were having. Court cases are real facts, and being backed by the power of the State, are the most significant facts.

So why not answer the question?

You asked me about 'all the cases'. I answered you.

want to keep asking more reasonable questions? Try about fitness. I find that more interesting.

Especially since, those of you who seem to enjoy contradicting me, can't seem to find a single fact I get wrong about that.

I don't find your concept of fitness interesting.

So are you saying that all 60 some odd cases were dismissed for lack of standing?

[Cunt]

I don't find your concept of fitness interesting.

So are you saying that all 60 some odd cases were dismissed for lack of standing?

No.

I was telling you that you can find that out, if you want to. Just like you could find a large number of examples of fraud, if you wanted to.

I mean if you can navigate around the social media management of the information.

[Joe]

I don't find your concept of fitness interesting.

So are you saying that all 60 some odd cases were dismissed for lack of standing?

No.

I was telling you that you can find that out, if you want to. Just like you could find a large number of examples of fraud, if you wanted to.

I mean if you can navigate around the social media management of the information.

I could, but I don't need to. As you've pointed out, I'm comfortable that the courts did their jobs correctly, and as President Trump's Attorney General said, “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

The courts have ruled, law enforcement has investigated, and your claims about widespread fraud are unsupported. I'm not doing your work for you.

As for Crowder, if his analysis is so convincing then let him sit in a courtroom under penalty of perjury, testify and be cross-examined. From what I've seen in discussions here, he has a weak case for fraud.

I'm open to changing my mind, but the person claiming I'm wrong will have to do the legwork, which is as it should be.

[Cunt]

I don't find your concept of fitness interesting.

So are you saying that all 60 some odd cases were dismissed for lack of standing?

No.

I was telling you that you can find that out, if you want to. Just like you could find a large number of examples of fraud, if you wanted to.

I mean if you can navigate around the social media management of the information.

I could, but I don't need to. As you've pointed out, I'm comfortable that the courts did their jobs correctly, and as President Trump's Attorney General said, “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

The courts have ruled, law enforcement has investigated, and your claims about widespread fraud

If you'll quote me where I claimed widespread fraud, I'll retract it and think you honest about it.

It could be that I think there is fraud, at least as much as expected, and the denial of it is what is so unusual. So vigorous. Such passion for a MOST secure election.

And I don't know what number qualifies as 'mass' to you, since I don't know where you got that quote. I have seen it used by dishonest 'fact-checkers' to fact-check stuff that wasn't said, but let me be clear - I don't know how much there was.

I don't know how much you think is significant.

But I do see you leaning hard on certainty, as if you think it is the most secure election that could be.

At least I'm glad the Trump admin did a good job making elections more secure. Maybe a bit surprised at how much you trust his fine work, but it is in the pudding.