Lying Liberals and the webs they weaveFollow

No, he brought up the investigation about the money and an initial description of what was going on, which was responded to. A brief discussion about possible reasons behind it. He didn't bring it up though, he responded to Smash asking about it, again about money and new developments in the case. Congratulations on learning how to search for things, but next time take a second to actually read what you find. Might save yourself some embarrassment.

So is your argument that "no one responded at all at the mention of Hastert," which you're wrong about since it was still "once," and that time was Sam, or "no one 'seriously' responded (which is hilarious)," which I'm still right since it was you? There's a pretty good example of hyperbole lacking evidence directed towards a Democrat in this very thread that you've been absolutely silent about, so "exact same way" might be a stretch.

Edited, Jun 30th 2015 11:04pm by lolgaxe

You'd think it'd be tiring, being wrong all the time.

They're curators.

With six stars, don't you outrank Washington? Isn't that some kind of hanging offence in the army?

I like the idea of shopping anything in this forum. As if you're really trying to promote your liberal agenda by writing to an audience of ~30 users.

They must be the same people that only speak in private messages and agree to nonsense in secret.

SHOP SHOP SHOP SHOP

Wop bop a loo shop

Edit: Really, Google? You censor "wop"?

Edited, Jul 8th 2015 8:38am by stupidmonkey

It's lacist.

I don't believe regularity, or offensiveness, of use is any part of the filter's criteria.

Fart.