-
Posts
17,855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by The Big Cat
-
the ones that have been posting to this sub forum for damn near 20 years
-
Explain why we should trust McBeane on offense?
The Big Cat replied to Kelly the Dog's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Objectively false: Dion Dawkins. -
Explain why we should trust McBeane on offense?
The Big Cat replied to Kelly the Dog's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Seems like your'e the one that has some explaining to do. -
Explain why we should trust McBeane on offense?
The Big Cat replied to Kelly the Dog's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
I get the sense you're not really looking for an explanation. -
Random Bills and what you remember them for
The Big Cat replied to Royale with Cheese's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Has this board turned over so much that nobody has yet mentioned Gibran Hamdan and his chroise? -
You're either helplessly dumb or helplessly stubborn. Either way, thanks for the brief distraction, not wasting any more of my time watching you tinfoil wing nuts jerk off to your insane conspiracy theories. Go Bills.
-
If you thought I was going to take your bait to switch the topic away from someone picking apart your nonsense, you should have taken the hint five attempts ago. That's all for 2018. Good to see you clowns haven't moved an inch.
-
Great so you understand now that you were unquestionably wrong to say the Russians didn't support Trump.
-
Oh hey! Look who finally decided to get on board! Can't wait to see how you guys twist to acknowledge it was happening all along:
-
So you acknowledge that words "we support them" in reference to Trump, but that's no indication that they supported one candidate over another. Interesting.
-
I see. Get called out for making stuff up. Insult the person.
-
That's fundamentally incorrect. You're plainly ignoring direct language from the indictment that is impossible to misinterpret Page 17 Section a: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4380504/The-Special-Counsel-s-Indictment-of-the-Internet.pdf
-
No. Nobody's saying that.
-
This is a conversation about the two years invested by the Kremlin to unseat that political dynasty. Did you already forget that?
-
Because they're stupid, untalented and naive political hacks that existed on the fringe of American politics before the only presidential candidate that would stoop so low as to have them came along.
-
I gave you two reasons why not to answer. How many do you need? Oh wait, I'm being lectured about cognitive dissonance by the "deep state" guy. Okay, carry on. May be you can help explain why so many of Trump's guys have been caught lying...repeatedly. Why did they lie?
-
Oh I see. You misspoke. It was an accident when you implied that all of the FB purchasing activity, according to the VP, came after the election. How far are you going to back track this one?
-
Because it was a stupid !@#$ing question that followed no relevant logic to your argument or to any argument any one else in their right mind would make. It was a stupid !@#$ing question that has no measurable answer, and that's why you asked it in the first place, hoping I was some kind of a moron.
-
Okay so we acknowledge you made a false statement in order stifle the opposing argument. That's good enough for me. You mean the obscure ads that 4.4 million people saw? At least you acknowledge that those 4.4 million impressions had a tangible impact, regardless of how it compares. That's good enough for me.
-
FALSE. 56% were purchased after the election, meaning there were roughly 4.4 million impressions before the election. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/hard-questions-russian-ads-delivered-to-congress/
-
[Misleading Title]Chargers QB benching
The Big Cat replied to Bing Bong's topic in The Stadium Wall Archives
Actually 81 of 150 respondents believe Petetman should have started.