Real man o' the people Canadian presidential candidate and half-melted wax Sam The Eagle replica Ted Cruz is in trouble this week after the New York Times revealed that his populist "I ran for Senate entirely on my own money" thing was bullcrap, as he actually took out a $500,000 loan from a big bank for his 2012 campaign. If you're saying "but candidate finances are boring, why does this matter?" -- oooh, let us show you why!
Were the facts wrong? Do you contest the substance of the piece? Or are you so wrapped up in admiration for your boy that the very thought that people might view him snarkily drives you to illogic?
And oh, by the way, sugarplum, a hit piece is defined as an editorial masquerading as objective journalism. The snark in this piece is evident and proudly displayed and the piece appears on a website noted for its liberal stance as well as its snark...so... contrary to your "oh the persecution" whining, there's no masquerade. Therefore, this is, by definition, not a hit piece.
HAHAHA. Ok little libtard. You can pretend that you didn't get your little panties in a bunch. Anyone who bothers to read these exchanges is probably fully aware of how libtards don't really care about facts or evidence. We all know the truth. You're upset. Try not to pout too much. Someday someone even dumber than you will come along and you might actually win a debate.
Actually, you dim-witted little simpleton, the reason for my first post was that Bing displayed this ridiculous hit piece on its front page. The fact that this is a liberal slanted rag only proves what I was trying to say. Maybe a little reading comprehension class will help you. Low information, libtards like yourself enjoy being lied to as long as the lies tell you what you want to hear. But Big Boys and Gils like to hear the truth. I know you can't possibly understand, so maybe find an adult to explain it to you. Ok? Night Night Tiger...
Actually, oh King of the Moving Goalposts, the placement of this site on Bing's (BING?? SERIOUSLY??) page was only part of your original complaint... a complaint you hilariously addressed to Bing but posted on Wonkette because you are apparently too stupid to tell the difference.
The other part of your complaint - the part I called you out on - was to label this a "hit piece." It's not, and I corrected you, citing specific reasons why you were wrong to use the term.
Now, not content with having exposed yourself as A Idiot at least twice already (seriously?? Bing???), you went for the trifecta, using tired, predictable old Limpbaugh-inspired conservative cliches (and misplaced commas) to describe Wonkette and its readers (and me), and engaging in that favorite bagger pastime, projection.
Seriously, it's just comedy gold watching you claim that I "enjoy being lied to as long as the lies tell [me] what [I] want to hear" in the middle of your temper tantrum about how Bing (seriously?? Bing??) somehow betrayed you by exposing you to ideas you don't want to hear.
You're fucking hilarious. Seriously. And you have the crust to call other people "dim-witted" and simpletons? That kind of utter lack of self-awareness is some funny shit.
You obviously love to watch yourself type, because the incoherent drivel that you spew forth out of your wilted brain is hysterical. It absolutely is a hit piece, and I wrote my response on the page that was linked. HERP DER... Have someone explain it to you...
I do love how far under your skin I managed to get. I mean, look at the wall of text you write in response. HAHAHAHA. You are just punching the keyboard and banging your head as you wet your wittle panties aren't you. HAHAHAHA. Oh the libtards are a funny bunch. I love it. Please, do some research, read more about it, spend more time thinking about me and my post that angered you so. I love winning so easily.
So... you have nothing. How cute that you think your lame-ass "oh you wouldn't understand" would cover that... but I'll bet you had a girlfriend in Canada also too.
You know, you're the fourth right-wing nutbag this week who has claimed to have "gotten under" my skin after I've written a detailed comment unpacking the depth of their stupidity. It seems like any time you assholes are comprehensively stumped by someone who shows you, in excruciating detail, just how idiotic you are, your knee-jerk response is "oho ... I got under your skin!"
I know that my comment was probably more words than you've read in a while, but that's how actual comments work among civilized people - to refute something someone else has written, intelligent people provide context and specific comments, as I've done. It's painful to see that you seem entirely unaware that intelligent discourse requires more of a response than your "nuh uhhhhhhh."
I'm not "angered" by your post. I'm saddened and disgusted by it...saddened mainly because no one should live in the kind of fog of ignorance and nastiness that apparently envelopes your life, and disgusted because your idiocy appears to be self-inflicted.
I am, however, utterly amused by the absolute lack of any substance to your complaints. You can't point to a single factually incorrect item in the original post, so you try to cover it with "huh do some research," apparently unaware that the reason I know a) that the original post was factually correct, and b) the actual definition of the term "hit piece" is because I actually HAVE done the research.
BTW, I really didn't need the window into your fantasies about how other people comment, but I suspect that you're doing some heavy projecting there, and that it's more a picture of yourself, considering your propensity for tantrums.
You're hardly the Keyboard Avenger you seem to think you are, so why don't you just open another bag of Cheetos and go back to Dead Breitbart's Home for Crusty Derpwads where you belong.
Bingers
Were the facts wrong? Do you contest the substance of the piece? Or are you so wrapped up in admiration for your boy that the very thought that people might view him snarkily drives you to illogic?
And oh, by the way, sugarplum, a hit piece is defined as an editorial masquerading as objective journalism. The snark in this piece is evident and proudly displayed and the piece appears on a website noted for its liberal stance as well as its snark...so... contrary to your "oh the persecution" whining, there's no masquerade. Therefore, this is, by definition, not a hit piece.
The more you know...
No, the facts are wrong, and you sound like an idiot each time you write. But please, continue.
HAHAHA. Ok little libtard. You can pretend that you didn't get your little panties in a bunch. Anyone who bothers to read these exchanges is probably fully aware of how libtards don't really care about facts or evidence. We all know the truth. You're upset. Try not to pout too much. Someday someone even dumber than you will come along and you might actually win a debate.
Actually, you dim-witted little simpleton, the reason for my first post was that Bing displayed this ridiculous hit piece on its front page. The fact that this is a liberal slanted rag only proves what I was trying to say. Maybe a little reading comprehension class will help you. Low information, libtards like yourself enjoy being lied to as long as the lies tell you what you want to hear. But Big Boys and Gils like to hear the truth. I know you can't possibly understand, so maybe find an adult to explain it to you. Ok? Night Night Tiger...
Cite the errors you claim exist. Go on... I dare you.
Actually, oh King of the Moving Goalposts, the placement of this site on Bing's (BING?? SERIOUSLY??) page was only part of your original complaint... a complaint you hilariously addressed to Bing but posted on Wonkette because you are apparently too stupid to tell the difference.
The other part of your complaint - the part I called you out on - was to label this a "hit piece." It's not, and I corrected you, citing specific reasons why you were wrong to use the term.
Now, not content with having exposed yourself as A Idiot at least twice already (seriously?? Bing???), you went for the trifecta, using tired, predictable old Limpbaugh-inspired conservative cliches (and misplaced commas) to describe Wonkette and its readers (and me), and engaging in that favorite bagger pastime, projection.
Seriously, it's just comedy gold watching you claim that I "enjoy being lied to as long as the lies tell [me] what [I] want to hear" in the middle of your temper tantrum about how Bing (seriously?? Bing??) somehow betrayed you by exposing you to ideas you don't want to hear.
You're fucking hilarious. Seriously. And you have the crust to call other people "dim-witted" and simpletons? That kind of utter lack of self-awareness is some funny shit.
You obviously love to watch yourself type, because the incoherent drivel that you spew forth out of your wilted brain is hysterical. It absolutely is a hit piece, and I wrote my response on the page that was linked. HERP DER... Have someone explain it to you...
I do love how far under your skin I managed to get. I mean, look at the wall of text you write in response. HAHAHAHA. You are just punching the keyboard and banging your head as you wet your wittle panties aren't you. HAHAHAHA. Oh the libtards are a funny bunch. I love it. Please, do some research, read more about it, spend more time thinking about me and my post that angered you so. I love winning so easily.
You wouldn't understand. Ask your mommy to explain it. I don't care to educate idiots
So... you have nothing. How cute that you think your lame-ass "oh you wouldn't understand" would cover that... but I'll bet you had a girlfriend in Canada also too.
You know, you're the fourth right-wing nutbag this week who has claimed to have "gotten under" my skin after I've written a detailed comment unpacking the depth of their stupidity. It seems like any time you assholes are comprehensively stumped by someone who shows you, in excruciating detail, just how idiotic you are, your knee-jerk response is "oho ... I got under your skin!"
I know that my comment was probably more words than you've read in a while, but that's how actual comments work among civilized people - to refute something someone else has written, intelligent people provide context and specific comments, as I've done. It's painful to see that you seem entirely unaware that intelligent discourse requires more of a response than your "nuh uhhhhhhh."
I'm not "angered" by your post. I'm saddened and disgusted by it...saddened mainly because no one should live in the kind of fog of ignorance and nastiness that apparently envelopes your life, and disgusted because your idiocy appears to be self-inflicted.
I am, however, utterly amused by the absolute lack of any substance to your complaints. You can't point to a single factually incorrect item in the original post, so you try to cover it with "huh do some research," apparently unaware that the reason I know a) that the original post was factually correct, and b) the actual definition of the term "hit piece" is because I actually HAVE done the research.
BTW, I really didn't need the window into your fantasies about how other people comment, but I suspect that you're doing some heavy projecting there, and that it's more a picture of yourself, considering your propensity for tantrums.
You're hardly the Keyboard Avenger you seem to think you are, so why don't you just open another bag of Cheetos and go back to Dead Breitbart's Home for Crusty Derpwads where you belong.
Too Long Didn't read. LOL. Keep crying little libtard. I love how angry you are. You are about to lose the White House and you are upset. Funny Stuff.
Ouch, what a comeback. You must kill in grammar school with that one little libtard.
Not a "comeback." It's a fact. I'm aware you don't understand the distinction, but I do.
I know all those words are difficult for you and make you feel inadequate.
Too bad.
A couple of points, though, sugarplum:
If you didn't read it, then how could you claim that you know I'm "upset" or "angry"?
If you did read it, then why would you say you didn't? And please point to anything I've said that indicates that I'm "angry" or "upset."
Mmmmkay.