Home› Tug Tavern

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

XidenBros crushed again

SledogSledog Member Posts: 34,389 Standard Supporter
in Tug Tavern


Love to be lied to!
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,579
    oh no
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,739 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    oh no

    The Dazzler is fine with lying insofar as it accomplishes the objective.

    But we've seen 2 years of his lying so that's already been established.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,579
    PurpleThrobber said:

    HHusky said:

    oh no

    The Dazzler is fine with lying insofar as it accomplishes the objective.

    But we've seen 2 years of his lying so that's already been established.

    Did the WSJ lie too?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadTripRoadTrip Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 7,913 Founders Club
    PurpleThrobber said:

    HHusky said:

    oh no

    The Dazzler is fine with lying insofar as it accomplishes the objective.

    But we've seen 2 years of his lying so that's already been established.

    2 years? I've read this fraud's shitpoasts for more than a decade. When was he ever not lying?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,579
    RoadTrip said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    HHusky said:

    oh no

    The Dazzler is fine with lying insofar as it accomplishes the objective.

    But we've seen 2 years of his lying so that's already been established.

    2 years? I've read this fraud's shitpoasts for more than a decade. When was he ever not lying?
    Imagine this becoming about me . . . again.

    I live in so many crazy places.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,579
    HHusky said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    HHusky said:

    oh no

    The Dazzler is fine with lying insofar as it accomplishes the objective.

    But we've seen 2 years of his lying so that's already been established.

    Did the WSJ lie too?
    No?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,739 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    HHusky said:

    oh no

    The Dazzler is fine with lying insofar as it accomplishes the objective.

    But we've seen 2 years of his lying so that's already been established.

    Did the WSJ lie too?
    What does the WSJ have to do with your two years of lying?

    I'm calling you a liar. Man up and quit deflecting, liar.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,739 Standard Supporter
    RoadTrip said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    HHusky said:

    oh no

    The Dazzler is fine with lying insofar as it accomplishes the objective.

    But we've seen 2 years of his lying so that's already been established.

    2 years? I've read this fraud's shitpoasts for more than a decade. When was he ever not lying?
    Highly unlikely. But two years on HCH.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 34,389 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    RoadTrip said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    HHusky said:

    oh no

    The Dazzler is fine with lying insofar as it accomplishes the objective.

    But we've seen 2 years of his lying so that's already been established.

    2 years? I've read this fraud's shitpoasts for more than a decade. When was he ever not lying?
    Imagine this becoming about me . . . again.

    I live in so many crazy places.
    You made it about you. I didn't name you but you area self admitted XidenBro. Who lives in who's head?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,579
    Tequilla said:

    You mean the media didn’t do their due diligence and then corrected the story after all relevant implications to the story being wrong no longer matter and can be swept under the rug?

    I’d be more surprised at this point if the media had standards

    "The media" isn't a monolith. The WSJ broke the story.

    The WaPo corrected two quotations that weren't accurate, yet in were no way substantively different than what Daddy did say.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 15,642 Standard Supporter
    "The WaPo corrected two quotations that weren't accurate..." The dazzler and the MSM in a nutshell. Just like Dan Rather.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,579
    WestlinnDuck said:

    "The WaPo corrected two quotations that weren't accurate..." The dazzler and the MSM in a nutshell. Just like Dan Rather.

    A newspaper corrected an error in its reporting. Gasbag says "That just proves . . . something . . . blah, blah blah . . . ."

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,937
    HHusky said:

    Tequilla said:

    You mean the media didn’t do their due diligence and then corrected the story after all relevant implications to the story being wrong no longer matter and can be swept under the rug?

    I’d be more surprised at this point if the media had standards

    "The media" isn't a monolith. The WSJ broke the story.

    The WaPo corrected two quotations that weren't accurate, yet in were no way substantively different than what Daddy did say.
    Kinda similar logic to Pelosi talking about fighting a certified election result where her candidate lost by 6 votes ...

    It’s all semantics right?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 15,642 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    WestlinnDuck said:

    "The WaPo corrected two quotations that weren't accurate..." The dazzler and the MSM in a nutshell. Just like Dan Rather.

    A newspaper corrected an error in its reporting. Gasbag says "That just proves . . . something . . . blah, blah blah . . . ."

    An error? I see a pattern. You see an excuse. I pity your clients.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,579
    WestlinnDuck said:

    HHusky said:

    WestlinnDuck said:

    "The WaPo corrected two quotations that weren't accurate..." The dazzler and the MSM in a nutshell. Just like Dan Rather.

    A newspaper corrected an error in its reporting. Gasbag says "That just proves . . . something . . . blah, blah blah . . . ."

    An error? I see a pattern. You see an excuse. I pity your clients.
    So far you've identified Dan Rather (2001?) and WaPo (2021).

    "Pattern!"

    The geometry students among us will note two points does establish a line. Calling it a "pattern" is a stretch.

    And far from "retracting" the story, as the hack from OAN says, the WaPo corrected the story. It's not really comparable to Rathergate, but you lost your ability to do nuance at the Second Battle of the Marne, I believe.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • doogiedoogie Member Posts: 15,072
    edited March 2021
    Democrats used the Fake quote as evidence in the last in Peach mint exercise

    I’m sure it wasn’t sworn testimony because that would be against the law
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BennyBeaverBennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346
    This has legs!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadTripRoadTrip Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 7,913 Founders Club
    PurpleThrobber said:

    RoadTrip said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    HHusky said:

    oh no

    The Dazzler is fine with lying insofar as it accomplishes the objective.

    But we've seen 2 years of his lying so that's already been established.

    2 years? I've read this fraud's shitpoasts for more than a decade. When was he ever not lying?
    Highly unlikely. But two years on HCH.

    Sorry, was referencing the old Woodshed
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.