Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research

[robosmith]

Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research Video

Most of the time, they can't find evidence to prove what they believe.

But when they do, it's so weak, it is easily refuted.

Of course FOS LIES knew what they wanted to hear, because their competitors were stealing their viewers by LYING.

So FOS LIES joined the competitors with their LIES and PAID BIG TIME for THAT. LMAO

[Legato]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research Video

Most of the time, they can't find evidence to prove what they believe.

But when they do, it's so weak, it is easily refuted.

Of course FOS LIES knew what they wanted to hear, because their competitors were stealing their viewers by LYING.

So FOS LIES joined the competitors with their LIES and PAID BIG TIME for THAT. LMAO

 

[Nationalist]

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research Video

Most of the time, they can't find evidence to prove what they believe.

But when they do, it's so weak, it is easily refuted.

Of course FOS LIES knew what they wanted to hear, because their competitors were stealing their viewers by LYING.

So FOS LIES joined the competitors with their LIES and PAID BIG TIME for THAT. LMAO

San Diego eh you little goof?

I'll see you behind bars soon fck-face.

[Deluge]

37 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research Video

Most of the time, they can't find evidence to prove what they believe.

But when they do, it's so weak, it is easily refuted.

Of course FOS LIES knew what they wanted to hear, because their competitors were stealing their viewers by LYING.

So FOS LIES joined the competitors with their LIES and PAID BIG TIME for THAT. LMAO

Hey, I do lots of research robomarx, when it's needed. It's just that you're so full of woke propaganda that you usually kill your own argument before a response is made.  

[John Johnston]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research Video

Most of the time, they can't find evidence to prove what they believe.

But when they do, it's so weak, it is easily refuted.

Of course FOS LIES knew what they wanted to hear, because their competitors were stealing their viewers by LYING.

So FOS LIES joined the competitors with their LIES and PAID BIG TIME for THAT. LMAO

1. Cause they don't have enough pictures? 

2. They cannot read? 

3. Critical thinking is too difficult? 

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

Hey, I do lots of research robomarx, when it's needed. It's just that you're so full of woke propaganda that you usually kill your own argument before a response is made.  

Don't pamper to that dipshit. His idea of research is scrolling boomerbook and watching AI reels. 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

San Diego eh you little goof?

I'll see you behind bars soon fck-face.

How ya gonna do that, dropout?

Gonna hire Sherlock Holmes? LMAO

[Legato]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

How ya gonna do that, dropout?

Gonna hire Sherlock Holmes? LMAO

You do know Sherlock Homes is not a housing development......do you....?

[User]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research Video

Most of the time, they can't find evidence to prove what they believe.

But when they do, it's so weak, it is easily refuted.

Of course FOS LIES knew what they wanted to hear, because their competitors were stealing their viewers by LYING.

So FOS LIES joined the competitors with their LIES and PAID BIG TIME for THAT. LMAO

You are the biggest cowardly troll on this forum who now spends most of your time spamming.

Until you can actually stick around and engage, defending the BS you are posting, you have no room to sit here lecturing anyone on anything. 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Legato said:

You do know Sherlock Homes is not a housing development......do you....?

You apparently do NOT. 

Which is why you spelled it wrong. LMAO

[Legato]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

You apparently do NOT. 

Which is why you spelled it wrong. LMAO

Spelt what wrung.

[gatomontes99]

22 hours ago, robosmith said:

Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research Video

Most of the time, they can't find evidence to prove what they believe.

But when they do, it's so weak, it is easily refuted.

Of course FOS LIES knew what they wanted to hear, because their competitors were stealing their viewers by LYING.

So FOS LIES joined the competitors with their LIES and PAID BIG TIME for THAT. LMAO

Another hate-filed video fueled by blind bigotry.

The idìot that made this video seems to believe that the only view that can be held, by viewing the two videos he mentioned, is his view. He lacks the ability to see how others come to varying conclusions using the same information. And, he does not care to have any such ability.

This video is a typical, leftist agitprop video. It lacks perspective, relying on strawman assumptions to bolster his views. He claims that the Pretti video shows clear malice, when it actually shows a man resisting arrest, with a gun. The ending was predictable, though not perfect or desirable. He believes the J6 videos show something other than a riot, but I suspect he never watched the videos of the groups being let in and led around the Capitol building. 

There is always more than one side to every story. To him, there is only one side. Since he cannot comprehend that others might disagree, he must malign and berate them so that he can feel satisfaction in dismissing their opinions without consideration or discussion. 

 

Edited March 31 by gatomontes99

[WestCanMan]

22 hours ago, robosmith said:

Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research Video

Most of the time, they can't find evidence to prove what they believe.

But when they do, it's so weak, it is easily refuted.

Robobigot: when was the last time that you, or any other left4rd for that matter, refuted something that a "right-winger" said? 

And FYI Hodad's famous claim of "Secret lab results from its manufacturers showed that CFR among the vaxed was actually lower. Deaths were only up in 2022 because the vaccines failed so dismally at slowing the spread of the virus that the multi-vaxed in Canada got infected over and over and over again before 16,000 of them died" doesn't count as "refuted something". 

What did you ever refute?

I'd love to see your latest example. Or any example. Not even by you, robobigot, by any leftie.

I just flipped Barqmanbun's post on its head 1 hr ago in the NDP thread in the Canada forum. Made him look stupid. 

Not too long ago you tried to "refute" my statement that the IRGC and Hamas were dedicated to GENOCIDE in Israel and I hoisted you on your petard. In fact, based on that exchange, your de facto username is now robo-bigot, because you tried to pretend that a story about "rocks and trees helping the muslims to slaughter Jews who were just trying to hide" was merely "a parable that was open to interpretation".

 

You had a long run here with your current username, but it's time for you to sever ties with it dude, because you will never live-down the title "ROBO-BIGOT".

Edited March 31 by WestCanMan

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Robobigot: when was the last time that you, or any other left4rd for that matter, refuted something that a "right-winger" said? 

Today, yesterday and everyday this year. AKA more than you will EVER UNDERSTAND.

You still believe that it didn't rain in DC on Jan 20, 2017. solely because that's what Trump told you. LMAO

[Fluffypants]

14 hours ago, robosmith said:

Today, yesterday and everyday this year. AKA more than you will EVER UNDERSTAND.

You still believe that it didn't rain in DC on Jan 20, 2017. solely because that's what Trump told you. LMAO

Your still believe that Trump called the troops sucker losers even though everyone actually at that meeting including a man who hates Trump said it never happened. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Fluffypants said:

Your still believe that Trump called the troops sucker losers even though everyone actually at that meeting including a man who hates Trump said it never happened. 

Anyone who didn't hear it MIGHT say "it never happened." All it takes is ONE WHO HEARD IT, to provide the evidence.

Do you understand LOGIC?

Quote

The report that President Donald Trump referred to fallen U.S. service members as "suckers" and "losers" originated from a 2020 The Atlantic article, citing anonymous sources. This report claimed that in 2018, Trump made these comments regarding American soldiers buried at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris. [1, 2]

Key Details of the Allegations

• The Atlantic Report (2020): Jeffrey Goldberg reported that Trump declined to visit the cemetery, saying it was "filled with losers" and that Marines who died in the Battle of Belleau Wood were "suckers".
• Corroboration: While initially based on anonymous sources, some, including former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, have corroborated parts of the report, noting that Trump showed contempt for service members.
•  

 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Anyone who didn't hear it MIGHT say "it never happened." All it takes is ONE WHO HEARD IT, to provide the evidence.

Where is this evidence? Keep in mind, multiple witnesses say it never happened. 

Edited April 1 by gatomontes99

[robosmith]

44 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Where is this evidence? Keep in mind, multiple witnesses say it never happened. 

What don't you understand about "never heard it"?

Do you believe that EVERYONE heard EVERYTHING Trump said? LMAO

"Witnesses" does NOT mean they HEARD EVERYTHING. Duh

Aside from that, you've got NOTHING but YOUR OPINION.

AKA John Kelly corroborated.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

What don't you understand about "never heard it"?

Do you believe that EVERYONE heard EVERYTHING Trump said? LMAO

"Witnesses" does NOT mean they HEARD EVERYTHING. Duh

Aside from that, you've got NOTHING but YOUR OPINION.

AKA John Kelly corroborated.

Right. The career official that was fired by Trump is the perfect, unbiased place for facts. No one other than Kelly has made these claims and Kelly was not present when the supposed statement was made. But you go with that fantasy. Meanwhile, the official reason why the cenetary was not visited was because rain prevented the helicopter ride and the drive was too far, complicated and dangerous. That ks why it was canceled and no amount of left wing fantasies is going to change that. 

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Right. The career official that was fired by Trump is the perfect, unbiased place for facts. No one other than Kelly has made these claims and Kelly was not present when the supposed statement was made. But you go with that fantasy. Meanwhile, the official reason why the cenetary was not visited was because rain prevented the helicopter ride and the drive was too far, complicated and dangerous. That ks why it was canceled and no amount of left wing fantasies is going to change that. 

John Kelly's word means FAR MORE than YOUR ^RANTS.

YOUR OPINION MEANS NOTHING. Put up or Shut up.

[CdnFox]

On 3/30/2026 at 2:12 PM, robosmith said:

Why the Right Wingers Don't Do Their Research Video

Most of the time, they can't find evidence to prove what they believe.

But when they do, it's so weak, it is easily refuted.

Of course FOS LIES knew what they wanted to hear, because their competitors were stealing their viewers by LYING.

So FOS LIES joined the competitors with their LIES and PAID BIG TIME for THAT. LMAO

Hahaha!  It's so cute when he pretends to be educated    (imma put the picture he made on the fridge.... )

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

What don't you understand about "never heard it"?

Do you believe that EVERYONE heard EVERYTHING Trump said? LMAO

"Witnesses" does NOT mean they HEARD EVERYTHING. Duh

Aside from that, you've got NOTHING but YOUR OPINION.

AKA John Kelly corroborated.

Kelly was not a reliable source because JK worked with Vindman, the CIA and USAID to promote the Ukraine hoax. 

House.gov

NBC: Kelly found himself in the crosshairs of his former boss in 2020, when Kelly came to the defense of then-Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who had reported his concerns about Trump’s July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

What you are asking me to do is to prove a negative. Prove Trump did not say what Kelly claims Trump said. What i can prove is that Kelly was part of a failed conspiracy to impeach Trump over a normal, diplomatic phone call. 

Further, you cannot prove Trump said anything of the sort. Your only evidence is a discredited, disgruntled former staffer. You are making the claim. You have the burden of proof. Go.

[robosmith]

58 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Further, you cannot prove Trump said anything of the sort. Your only evidence is a discredited, disgruntled former staffer. You are making the claim. You have the burden of proof. Go.

John Kelly is FAR MORE REPUTABLE than Trump's DENIALS.

Kelly according to Trump:

 

Quote

When Donald Trump announced he was appointing John Kelly as his White House chief of staff on July 28, 2017, he praised him as a "Great American" and a "true star" of his administration. [1]

What Trump Said (July 2017):

• Via Twitter: Trump called Kelly a "Great American," a "Great Leader," and a "true star" of his administration, praising his work at Homeland Security.
• To Reporters: He further highlighted Kelly’s "spectacular job" and expressed expectation for an "even better job" as chief of staff. [1, 2]

President Trump announced the appointment of John Kelly, praising his work as DHS Secretary and his upcoming role, as shown in this video:

 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

John Kelly is FAR MORE REPUTABLE than Trump's DENIALS.

Kelly according to Trump:

 

 

So you are tripling down? 

The big problem is, a video released by The Sun Sentinel disproves Kelly’s entire account of Wilson’s comments, which pertain to the building’s naming—after two slain FBI agents—not it’s funding;

It turns out Kelly gratuitously smeared Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), claiming she had taken credit for securing federal funding for an FBI building. (She made no such claim.) Future professors of rhetoric will have to excise that part of the speech from their textbooks!

So you guys did not believe him when he talked about Democrats, but you consider him infallable when he talks about Trump. It is the same old thing you guys do all the time.