No, it relates directly to the discussion.
1) there is not enough evidence to verify this story.
2) even if true, it has no bearing on the larger issue.
Now, you can form a rebuttal if you want or are capable, but both comments are on point.
I already told you why it has a bearing on this thread, if it's true. You never "rebutted" that. The "larger issue" isn't the issue of the thread. That's simply what you're trying to expand it to. The issue of the thread is the media handling of the specific case, nothing "larger" than that.
Yes I know, poor conservatives picked on by the big bad media. Again, that holds no significants. You have to show they knew what they were reporting wasn't valid or accurate.
Now you're changing the subject.
Look, your "larger issue" is what you want to argue about, not what the thread is about. And the truth of what happened to Matthew Shepard is entirely relevant to what the thread is about, despite what you say. It's your "larger issue" which is irrelevant to the thread.
I'm all for the truth. So, provide some. But I repeat:
1) there is not enough evidence to verify this story.
2) even if true, it has no bearing on the larger issue.
They speak directly to the OP and the comments that followed.
Yes, you repeat, which is your primary mode of "argument" -- the Boo Radley Merry-Go-Round.
You can say it three thousand times, and you gladly would, but it won't make you right or your "larger issue" relevant to the thread. If all you're going to do is repeat, which is the norm with you, then there's nothing else to say.
If you don't want repetition, offer something new. I've given you chances to respond, but you simply haven't.
Nice try, but it's my responses which have been met with mere repetition on your part, so it's you who needs to bring something new. But you knew that.
Look, you haven't said anything. You've complained. But nothing else. I have two points. Address one or both. Don't just whine. Make a case.
Did. Done. Bye-bye.
It is just weird that Shepard died, what, 15 years ago? And now someone comes out with information so far out (in time) it would be next to impossible to verify?
I don't believe it or not believe it.....but it probably would be difficult to pass the stink test.
So, it would seem that a liberal journalist, Stephen Jimenez is coming out with this, and the liberal machine is not happy with him....It brings up a serious look into how progressive liberals construct 'narratives' though, and how to understand how they are rarely based in truth.
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?