Jump to content

Infidel Dog

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Infidel Dog last won the day on January 9

Infidel Dog had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,958 profile views

Infidel Dog's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges



  1. The Russians have too many coming problems in the South to attack Kiev.
  2. Oh, oops. I said, "This Ukrainian guy says they'll be counter-attacking into Crimea by Summer," but I forgot to show you who "this guy" was. This guy: Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong.
  3. Conflicting stories for either side. This Ukrainian guy says they'll be counter-attacking into Crimea by Summer. Meanwhile we still wait to see if anything meaningful will happen from this supposed 500,000 new troop winter surge from Russia. I'll believe it when I see it.
  4. No surprises at the State of the Union tonight. Earlier, Tucker gave his predictions of what Joe would offer up as happening in his fantasy land, State of the Union concerning what we'll call "Biden's America." Then Tucker told us what was actually happening in Real World America. The difference was bracing:
  5. It was fun robo, but I'm starting to get bored. I've decided to give you a reprieve. Thank me later.
  6. You quoted me in a continuing discussion about the Senate report. You lied by saying you'd read it in its entirety then when you got caught not knowing much about it you said, "No, not that 900 and some odd page report. It was a different 500 and some odd page report I read in its entirety. Either way it's BS. But if you're going to say the quote you quoted from me concerned anything but the senate report that's a lie. If you still can't figure out why that is you're almost impossibly thick. So you're either stupid or a liar. You tell me which.
  7. You're the last person on this board who should ever be asking for exactitude from anybody.
  8. I thought I was clear. I already know what Joe's going to say. You three only hear what they want to so it doesn't matter what you listen to. If you guys ever come up with something new. Call me. I'll listen. I listened to Joe's last red Nazi hate speech. That was wild.
  9. I think Sarah Huckabee Sanders does the response. I'm more interested in that, so I'll be tuning in late.
  10. So basically, 'everything is wonderful. Don't believe your lying eyes." And then it's nap time.
  11. The great thing about the "stupid liar" trap is it only works on egoistic, narcissists who can't admit they could ever be wrong. So when you get one, you know what you got. I mean really, the escape is so easy. All he had to do was say something like, "Yeah, oops sorry about that. I was under the weather and not concentrating well enough. I missed what that quote actually concerned. I thought we were still talking about the Mueller report." To which I would have replied something like, "That's OK. It happens, but I don't believe you read the Mueller report in its entirety either. " But at least he'd be out of the trap. But he can't do that because in order to do it he'd have to admit there could be a case where he could ever be wrong. Makes me smile and think "Hey, this is fun."
  12. Yeah, you just keep struggling up there in the "stupid liar" trap, thinking if you pile up enough lame excuses we'll forget what actually happened. Hodad more or less dismissed the Mueller report as not being sufficient to prove collusion. Instead he introduced the 900 hundred some odd page Senate report as the gold standard for showing collusion. To which you immediately replied: So by your own admission you knew what report Hodad was talking about. Shorty afterward I posted: You then quoted that and claimed you had read the report in its entirety. Now if you didn't understand that quote you quoted concerned the senate report you're stupid. Later it became clear you didn't actually know the details in the senate report so then you said 'no. I was talking about the Mueller report. I read that in its entirety' (Not that it matters but I don't believe that either.) So you're either too stupid to follow basic reasoning and understand what you're quoting, or you're lying. Take your pick.
  13. Curious coincidence that what I called the senate report was in line with what we'd been discussing for a page or two, included a source reference and was clearly stated in the quote you used. You couldn't follow that? Seriously? Then you're either lying or you're not capable of basic reasoning. Maybe both are the case. You're in a trap, dummy. I call it the "stupid liar trap." We can play the game all year if you want. I'm having fun. You don't seem to be.
  • Create New...