Amused to Death
Footballguy
Show me yours for immediately blaming Biden. The investigation into Gaetz was part of a broader investigation of one his friends (found guilty, btw).Please let me know named sources..
Show me yours for immediately blaming Biden. The investigation into Gaetz was part of a broader investigation of one his friends (found guilty, btw).Please let me know named sources..
So you got nothing. Thanks for the deflection.Show me yours for immediately blaming Biden. The investigation into Gaetz was part of a broader investigation of one his friends (found guilty, btw).
I’ll let the Feds handle this perv.Please provide flight records and not from Clinton.
Ain't my story, chief.So you got nothing. Thanks for the deflection.
If I'm following you...
Is that it?
- For some reason you think Liz Cheney is relevant to the possible sex trafficking investigation against Gaetz.
- Liz Cheney's spokesperson said some homophobic things about Matt Gaetz months ago.
- You actually do understand Liz Cheney is a Republican.
- But "the DNC" is going to lose votes over this.
So you have nothing yet are making unsubstantiated accusations. I’m disappointed in you..I’ll let the Feds handle this perv.
Its a troubling story, and he does himself no favors.His Carlson interview might wind up being rather important.
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1377065621398126594
But yet you are running with it with no sources or collaboration. Got it. Let me know when you find the Russian hooker peeing trump video.Ain't my story, chief.
I look forward to following his career on Newsmax investigating voter fraud and UFO’s.So you have nothing yet are making unsubstantiated accusations. I’m disappointed in you..
Sigh.Its a troubling story, and he does himself no favors.
For instance, I thought part of his defense is that this is an extortion claim, yet, on Carlson he states that the woman in question does not exist. Who is doing the extorting
Then, its probably nothing, but he suggests that he did not travel with a 17-yo, and that records all "bear that out". It sounds like he is going with a "her ID said she was 18" defense, to the non-existent woman. (In this respect, I think its noteworthy that Gaetz' friend - who was the original target in this investigation - was alleged to have been using his government position to create fake IDs for girls.)
Tucker always looks like my dog when he's constipated.His Carlson interview might wind up being rather important.
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1377065621398126594
Sigh.
These guys say it better and are more entertaining than I am. It's not entirely on topic, but it's still on point for Gaetz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o
That whole interview is very bizarre.Gaetz brings up Tucker getting accused of sexual assault 20 years ago.
Always a good move.
This vid and the "Don't Talk to Police" lecture are all-time classics in the Good Advice folder.Sigh.
These guys say it better and are more entertaining than I am. It's not entirely on topic, but it's still on point for Gaetz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o
So you have nothing again. I think The NY Times might have an opening. Can I make unsubstantiated claims about you now?I look forward to following his career on Newsmax investigating voter fraud and UFO’s.
Democrats will lose part of the LGBT vote because of Matt Gaetz? That is one of the most laughable things I have seen in a long time.
I said let the Feds handle itSo you have nothing again. I think The NY Times might have an opening. Can I make unsubstantiated claims about you now?
Chief is racially insensitive. Did you find Russian hooker pee video yet?Ain't my story, chief.
No, that's illegal if you know they're untrue and injure him in some way.So you have nothing again. I think The NY Times might have an opening. Can I make unsubstantiated claims about you now?
Reed Richards can't stretch as much as you are stretching here.Matt Gaetz is either heterosexual, gay or bisexual. ( For psychotics cancel culture woked out leftists here who want to start screaming about how I've just discriminated against pansexuals, please loosen the death grip on your Air Soft rifles right now, no one here is filming a western)
If Matt Gaetz comes out to this and says he's gay and he only sleeps with consenting adult males and only wants to sleep with consenting adult males, thus this makes any accusations of sexual criminal acts against a 17 year old girl impossible, then
1) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the Trump zealot
And
2) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the brand name Republican
And
3) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the myopic one trick pony enforcer for the old guard establishment Republican Party
Any continued attack on him by the leftist MSM and by any brand name Democrats will look like an attack on a gay American.
He's rebranded from Matt Gaetz Snow to Matt Stark! Then to Matt Targaryen! The Breaker of Homophobic Chains! The First King Of The.... I digress
Actually he's rebranded to Matt Gaetz, a gay American being run through the dirt by a gay hating corporate toxic sold out left leaning MSM and corrupt left leaning Big Social Media.
Lots of those on the left have cheered Liz Cheney, a Republican In Name Only ( just as much as Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat In Name Only) on for her anti-Trump stances or seemingly anti-establishment Republican stances. So now there's this ugly narrative of her office saying things that are clearly anti-gay. Her office, she's responsible for all the headlines that come out of it. The DNC can't have it both ways, they can't get the optics of "Liz Cheney is an example of a true populist Republican and a good leader" and simultaneously not take the hit for this kind of repugnant bigoted narrative. Liz Cheney stands with the DNC, there isn't much doubt to this, so what she eats, they eat.
Any brand name Democrat who wants to join in on the public media hunt for Gaetz, after this kind of move, will look like they hate gay people.
Part of "Identity Politics" is dogmatic defense no matter what of your own disenfranchised political sub group. You'll see a subset of black Americans who believe blacks can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of women who believe women can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of Jews who believe Jews can do no wrong no matter what. And you'll see a subset of the LGBT community who will believe a gay man, even Matt Gaetz, can do no wrong no matter what.
Lots of LGBT are hardline LGBT first and foremost, then Democrats second. Attacks on anyone who is gay or claimed to be gay like this is going to get an aggressive response back, including at the voting booth.
If the DNC didn't want this, they shouldn't have pushed for a backdoor "Matt Gaetz is secretly gay and ashamed of it" media narrative, through a RINO no less, to discredit him as a self loathing bigot.
So again you have nothing yet it’s funny. Are you momala?I said let the Feds handle it
Really? That’s absolutely not true. Papers have gone with stories with less then two sources. So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?No, that's illegal if you know they're untrue and injure him in some way.
That's why newspapers typically get two (or more) sources to give them the same information.
Even a famous person like Gaetz is protected from knowingly false statements that might damage his reputation. (yeah, I know, but work with me here for the sake of discussion)
Please let us know what you know here...With how aggressively he’s doing ‘damage control’, he must know he’s in trouble. Gotta love even Tucker thinking he’s crazy. How long until Trump says he barely knew him?
That is absolutely amazing. Every single thing about that video is pure gold.Sigh.
These guys say it better and are more entertaining than I am. It's not entirely on topic, but it's still on point for Gaetz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o
I hope Geatz has time to get to the bottom of the Antifa at the Capitol riots.So again you have nothing yet it’s funny. Are you momala?
This is a really good question. Trump usually has no problem suing people. I'm now questioning why he hasn't sued a bunch of people over this.Really? That’s absolutely not true. Papers have gone with stories with less then two sources. So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?
You are confused here.Really? That’s absolutely not true. Papers have gone with stories with less then two sources. So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?
So according to you , if I find 1 other person that agrees with me then I can make any claim against anyone , right?No, that's illegal if you know they're untrue and injure him in some way.
That's why newspapers typically get two (or more) sources to give them the same information.
Even a famous person like Gaetz is protected from knowingly false statements that might damage his reputation. (yeah, I know, but work with me here for the sake of discussion)
Probably nobody.So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?
Please respond to question rather then deflection.I hope Geatz has time to get to the bottom of the Antifa at the Capitol riots.
Please provide video of trump peeing on Russian hooker..Probably nobody.
I am not aware of any major media company that reported the trump hooker peeing story as fact. What was widely reported is that the allegation of Trump hooker peeing story was in the Steele Dossier - which was, in fact, true.
Why would anybody want to see that?Please provide video of trump peeing on Russian hooker..
In what way is that an example of them not being reputable?Another example why The NY Times is not reputable and worthless yet posters here defend them..
Do you really want to see that?Please provide video of trump peeing on Russian hooker..
So no one made that allegation?Why would anybody want to see that?
That is not even the allegation...
Well, that's probably a little broader than I'd word it.So according to you , if I find 1 other person that agrees with me then I can make any claim against anyone , right?
Unnamed sources again and again. That was a standard at one point but let me know if we moved the goalpostsIn what way is that an example of them not being reputable?
Multiple sources confirmed. Any reputable publication would go with that the way the NYT did.Unnamed sources again and again. That was a standard at one point but let me know if we moved the goalposts
No...I don’t believe anyone made that allegation.So no one made that allegation?
Just stop the gymnastics. Let this play out because you have NO facts at this point.Well, that's probably a little broader than I'd word it.
And because newspapers can (and do) get sued all the time they're going to be very careful with you as a source if they don't know you.
That's what you're missing here. Newspapers use anonymous sources, but they aren't anonymous to the reporter writing the story. The reporter knows who it is and has an opinion about whether they can be trusted. Most of the time the reporter has known the source for many years and the two have come to trust each other.