- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,249
- Reaction score
- 1,055
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
OC,
I have not attacked Daily Kos for using bad numbers, once again you are off on a trip to imagination land. All you seem capable of is trying to ignore what I have said in favor of what you want to pretend I have said. Or you think you can none too artfully try to twist it into. You've tried the "you are personally attacking me wah wah" to no avail. You've tried claiming that I've found Daily Kos guilty of something regarding this polling numbers story when I have not. I've made a funny spot on joke and stated the iron clad fact that Daily Kos is biased, not even handed and is in fact known as one of the most virulently vocal partisan hack jobs on the internet. Hell even SNL has made fun of them for it! None of that having a thing to do with the polling numbers law suit, but rather their history. I could give a flip (once again) that a polling organization was giving them bad polling numbers, great for them that they are suing them and so what? It has no bearing on what I think about their blogs and well documented stances over the years. In fact, I note the even as MG "defended" them over this story, she did so in a back hand way, owing to the fact that even she knows what they are all about. Sadly you don't have any coherent point that actually takes into account what I have actually stated in this thread. At all. Just arguing by rote, and launching off into a tack that you think will allow you to call me a hypocrite, while you simultaneous whine that I'm personally attacking you. Which rings rather dim when coupled with Roughdraft's ridiculous "you've flamed liberals in this thread" posturing.
End of the day nobody did any fraudulent reporting. Daily Kos does no reporting whatsoever. None, so no comment from me about their non existent reporting is needed. I have not "attacked" Daily Kos, I have stated a fact about them; they are biased and I have repeated the reputation their highly partisan blog has earned them. I have not expressed any opinion about what their use of fraudulent poll numbers does or does not mean. Period. Though you have tried tried tried to twist what I have said about them into something you think you can try to then paint as some kind of hypocritical attack on them. Calling them what they are, biased, proudly and openly so, is no "hypocritical attack" on them in any way. Yes I could see what you were trying to do from the start, so sorry I'm just not playing obvious child games.
At this point it is obvious trying to have a rational and honest discussion with you is just not going to be possible. It appears to be all about, as you have demonstrated elsewhere, whom you think can "win" an internet argument; as if that ever occurs. Hell we just saw that even when you begrudgingly are forced to admit you got "beat" in an internet argument, you are off in the very next post acting like you did not, and the whole matter was really all about, what was it now? Diffusers?:doh
Your shtick is painfully obvious and not terribly effective. Carry on.
I have not attacked Daily Kos for using bad numbers, once again you are off on a trip to imagination land. All you seem capable of is trying to ignore what I have said in favor of what you want to pretend I have said. Or you think you can none too artfully try to twist it into. You've tried the "you are personally attacking me wah wah" to no avail. You've tried claiming that I've found Daily Kos guilty of something regarding this polling numbers story when I have not. I've made a funny spot on joke and stated the iron clad fact that Daily Kos is biased, not even handed and is in fact known as one of the most virulently vocal partisan hack jobs on the internet. Hell even SNL has made fun of them for it! None of that having a thing to do with the polling numbers law suit, but rather their history. I could give a flip (once again) that a polling organization was giving them bad polling numbers, great for them that they are suing them and so what? It has no bearing on what I think about their blogs and well documented stances over the years. In fact, I note the even as MG "defended" them over this story, she did so in a back hand way, owing to the fact that even she knows what they are all about. Sadly you don't have any coherent point that actually takes into account what I have actually stated in this thread. At all. Just arguing by rote, and launching off into a tack that you think will allow you to call me a hypocrite, while you simultaneous whine that I'm personally attacking you. Which rings rather dim when coupled with Roughdraft's ridiculous "you've flamed liberals in this thread" posturing.
End of the day nobody did any fraudulent reporting. Daily Kos does no reporting whatsoever. None, so no comment from me about their non existent reporting is needed. I have not "attacked" Daily Kos, I have stated a fact about them; they are biased and I have repeated the reputation their highly partisan blog has earned them. I have not expressed any opinion about what their use of fraudulent poll numbers does or does not mean. Period. Though you have tried tried tried to twist what I have said about them into something you think you can try to then paint as some kind of hypocritical attack on them. Calling them what they are, biased, proudly and openly so, is no "hypocritical attack" on them in any way. Yes I could see what you were trying to do from the start, so sorry I'm just not playing obvious child games.
At this point it is obvious trying to have a rational and honest discussion with you is just not going to be possible. It appears to be all about, as you have demonstrated elsewhere, whom you think can "win" an internet argument; as if that ever occurs. Hell we just saw that even when you begrudgingly are forced to admit you got "beat" in an internet argument, you are off in the very next post acting like you did not, and the whole matter was really all about, what was it now? Diffusers?:doh
Your shtick is painfully obvious and not terribly effective. Carry on.
Last edited: