XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican
On 2024-01-29 18:33, AlleyCat wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:49:28 -0800, Alan says...
On 2024-01-27 12:56, AlleyCat wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:39:21 -0800, Alan says...
You renege.
I do?
Yup.
Nope.
Yup.
You said you'd present your evidence if I said I hadn't heard it myself.
You:
'I'll happily show you the evidence... ... right after you tell me you
haven't heard it yourself... ... fat boy.'
Me:
'I haven't heard it myself. So let's see your evidence.'
You lied. Or you played another one of you bullshit liberal tricks: semantics.
Nope.
You might not have "heard", but you've seen or read, so you lied and...
Nope.
https://i.imgur.com/jDkagDD.mp4
You then posted but showed no evidence.
You showed no evidence that you've never read or seen anything about the "lab leak".
You didn't ask me to present evidence. Only that I hadn't heard of what
you've now carefully snipped.
If you never heard, read or seen anything about...
in-person voting did/did not increase the spread of
COVID.
mail-in voting was less secure.
monitored social media to detect unapproved "narratives" relating to mail-in voting and to confirm that platforms were adequately censoring them.
... then, you must live UNDER mommy's basement.
Your claims were:
The evidence is that:
CISA knew that in-person voting did not increase the spread of
COVID.
CISA knew mail-in voting was less secure.
CISA nevertheless supported policy changes to encourage
unprecedented widespread mail-in voting.
CISA formed the EIP to censor narratives relating to mail-in voting.
CISA broadly monitored social media to detect unapproved
"narratives" relating to mail-in voting and to confirm that platforms were adequately censoring them.
I have never heard, read or otherwise learned that CISA did ANY of those things.
So show your evidence that they did...
...or renege again...
...loser.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)