Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Nope, you gave me two news articles citing unnamed sources saying such...Means nothing....I asked for the specific contract clause in Phil's contract....You can't provide that, and now you are spinning....
Got that contract clause yet?
Again, standard reporting practice.
Accepted by those who want to accept bull ****....Got that contract clause yet?
Got the contract clause yet?
Chicken **** tactics won't help here.
We can move on as soon as you back up your claim with actual fact....Got that contract clause yet?
That doesn't make it so.Yes, a an accepted standard form of reporting. Something you'd accept in another context.
That doesn't make it so.
And you are smart enough to know that.
Not playing.
Then you loose the point....You made the claim...Now either show the contract clause or continue to be childish about it, I don't care either way....I am laughing my ass of at you. :laughat: Boo
Self censorship is the hallmark of the left and the only way they can maintain their beliefs. Stay in the dark brother, but others may wish to further educate themselves.Nothing from the NR is worth a bootful of warm piss.
Self censorship is the hallmark of the left and the only way they can maintain their beliefs. Stay in the dark brother, but others may wish to further educate themselves.
This another guy who nails it with today's Blacklistings.The New Blacklist | National Review Online
Not playing.
It is a poor source. Over the years it's been shown to factually inaccurate a few times. Inaccuracy is a valid reason to dismiss it.
:dohIt makes it likely, which us enough for now.
Aw, C'mon Boo. You made the claim now just demonstrate evidence of it. Or if you were wrong just say so.
Wow! Making another wild claim without offering any evidence. Why not get one problem out of the way before you start another? Better yet, you can show the inaccuracies in the article I just posted and then we can all pile on NRO?!!!
:doh
Okay, so I was wrong about you being smart enough.
An assumption is not good enough when you are asked for proof.
Any Judge would laugh you out of the Court Room, just as we are laughing at you here.
:lamo
Deflection. You know we are talking about what is in the contract.The contract is not an assumption. It's what is being reported.
So, two news sources reporting it makes me wrong? Not.
Deflection. You know we are talking about what is in the contract.
Which you have failed numerous time to provide because you choose to assume.
But those two news sources didn't substantiate the claims you made. We know that and you know it as well. You are so typical of the Left!
The hell you are not assuming.No. We have two news reports. You don't like unnamed sources. But they are used. I'm assuming nothing. The reports are what they are.
The hell you are not assuming.
Have you yet provided the requested details of said contract to even assert the claims are true?
Nope. Then you are assuming.
No it is not enough. An assumption is never enough when a definitive is asked for.Again I've provided the report. At this stage that is enough. More will come later.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?