LSM trying to bullshit us again..

I told you this was coming, and well, here it is:

(Reuters) – Home sales rose in November, adding to hints of recovery, but updated data showed the housing crash was much deeper than previously thought.

The National Association of Realtors said on Wednesday that sales of previously owned homes increased 4 percent from October to an annual rate of 4.42 million units.

At November’s sales pace, the 2.58 million unsold homes on the market represented a 7.0 month’s supply, the lowest since February 2007 and a sign the backlog of inventory that has been weighing on the market was clearing.

The rise in sales and drop in inventory was the latest suggestion the housing sector, which triggered the 2007-09 recession, may be on the cusp of a recovery. Data on Tuesday showed housing starts scaled a 1-1/2 year high in November.

“The housing market is finding its bottom, and that will translate into more growth in GDP and less of a drag on consumer confidence,” said Robert Dye, chief economist at Comerica in Dallas. “But we still have a long, long way to go.”

It’s all bullshit by these assholes DNC propagandists in the LSM, and those not part of the LSM are pointing that on

Existing home sales climbed for another month in November, however the news was dampened by an announcement that the level of home sales sold in the U.S. was revised down by an average 14.3% per year since 2007, confirming that the housing collapse was worse than expected.

A decline in for-sale by owner properties was the largest factor in a series of downward revisions to housing sales and inventories since 2007, according to a report released Wednesday by the National Association of Realtors. The decline in sales boosted market share for the nation’s realtors and caused the NAR to revise its benchmark number for the years since the housing bust, after numbers started to fall “out of sync,” according to an NAR representative.

In 2010 home purchases were revised down by 14.6% to 4.19 million. Purchases in 2008 and 2009 were revised downward 16%, and 11% in 2007.

If you drop the number of sales you were claiming was indicating a bump up since 2009 – guess what happened then? – and then the current numbers look like they are better, that’s not good news. It just means that you had been feeding us bullshit for 3 years before now about things getting better, anyway. And have no doubt this is more bullshit. If this had been a republican president’s campaign on the ropes, we would ONLY be hearing about how the numbers where all false. Instead Reuters, and the rest of the LSM that take their marching orders from the DNC, pretend this is much ado about nothing, and we now have “good news”!

Don’t fall for it. There will be nothing but these lies about how things are getting better till November 2012. Then, if a republican wins, we will get the most pessimistic economic coverage you have ever seen from the pissed off leftists. Of course with the democrats working to commit massive fraud, this might all be moot. Things will keep getting bad, and the losers will keep lying to us about how they are getting better.

Comments are closed.

  1. balthazar

    My wife is a real estate agent in one of the least hit markets in the US. Other than the front loaded “bump” from the tax credit, sales have been abysmal for the last 3 years. She and her coworkers have been saying internally that its alot worse than people think for a long time.

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    “The housing market is finding its bottom, and that will translate into more growth in GDP and less of a drag on consumer confidence,” said Robert Dye, chief economist at Comerica in Dallas. “But we still have a long, long way to go.”

    So Robert Dye is also part of the conspiracy, along with all the other economists the media go to for expert comment?

    Thumb up 0

  3. CM

    Instead Reuters, and the rest of the LSM that take their marching orders from the DNC, pretend this is much ado about nothing, and we now have “good news”!

    From the Reuters piece:

    updated data showed the housing crash was much deeper than previously thought.

    The pickup in sales, however, is coming off a deeper trough.

    While the U.S. economy appears to be gathering strength, the global backdrop remains troubling with much of the world slowing down and Europe sliding into an almost certain recession.

    In addition, lawmakers have yet to break an impasse over extending a payroll tax cut for 160 million U.S. workers that expires at year end. Economists have warned a failure to keep the tax cut in place could hit the economy hard.

    Stocks on Wall Street were little moved by the housing data as persistent worries over the European debt crisis dominated sentiment. U.S. stock indexes fell as weak results from technology giant Oracle Corp (ORCL.O) weighed on the mood.

    U.S. government debt prices also fell, while the dollar was up against the euro.

    market conditions are still troubled and analysts warned that a stream of foreclosed properties coming onto the market would likely keep prices under pressure.

    The median sales price rose 2.1 percent from October, but was still down 3.5 percent from a year ago at $164,200.

    Distressed properties, foreclosures and short sales which typically occur at deep discounts, accounted for 29 percent of sales last month, up from 28 percent in October.

    The number of new foreclosures jumped by more than 21 percent in the third quarter as banks moved more aggressively after a pause that began late last year, a bank regulator said.

    Last month, a third of pending existing home sales contracts were canceled, the NAR said. That was unchanged from October but way above the year-ago level of 9 percent, a suggestion that bank lending remains tight.

    “We expect months’ supply to head higher as inventory enters the market,” said Michelle Meyer, a senior economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “With a sluggish economic recovery, low consumer confidence and tight credit conditions, it will be difficult to clear the excess inventory.”

    “There is still a bumpy road ahead for the housing market,” she said.

    So the question is: did you, yet again, fail to actually read your own link?

    Thumb up 1

  4. Section8

    So Robert Dye is also part of the conspiracy, along with all the other economists the media go to for expert comment?

    I don’t think there is a conspiracy, but the economists we get expert opinion from are full of shit most of the time. The National Association of Realtors couldn’t even manage to keep track of the homes on the market or sold, and not by just some slight differences, but big ones, and don’t forget Bernanke was telling us all this would be a soft landing and maybe 100 Billion in losses. Shit, I wish I could be that incompetent at my job. I’d get paid for not showing up.

    Thumb up 2

  5. CM

    So where are all the economists out there saying the opposite, who are being ignored by this ‘LSM – DNC’ partnership? And why did the DNC allow the LSM to print all that negative stuff (that Alex didn’t quote and pretended wasn’t there)?

    Thumb up 0

  6. Section8

    So where are all the economists out there saying the opposite, who are being ignored by this ‘LSM – DNC’ partnership?

    Oh I’m not arguing that, I’m just saying a lot of credibility has been lost in both the private and public segments predicting the economy. My prediction: I’ll know the economy is doing fine when I can go to work and not think I might get the pink slip. I’ll trust that more than any report coming out these day.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Seattle Outcast

    Nobody I know in the real estate business has had anything but “it just keeps sucking more and more out there” to say for three years now.

    CM, you really need to understand that, for the most part, the major media outlets are little more than propaganda outlets for the Democratic party (the 2008 election was ample proof of that). Some of them, like CNN and MSNBC are extremely blatant in this regard, and you’ll even find a few that freely admit it. Fox is actually very neutral, but in comparison to rags like the NY Times, it comes across as extreme right. I’m sure that in your very “progressive” mindset, Fox and Drudge are vile, fascist purveyors of lies, disinformation, and other assorted evils that should be shut down in order to ensure that only the correct opinions and “facts” are allowed to be disseminated.

    Also, I fail to see why someone that lives on the other side of the planet takes such an extreme interest in American politics, particularly when it is obvious you don’t understand American culture worth a shit, and routinely take far left positions on a very libertarian blog. Nor do you actually contribute much other than linking to discredited web pages and engaging in disingenuous “discussions”. Until you behave otherwise I’m just going to consider you our resident troll.

    Hot! Thumb up 8

  8. CM

    I’m sure that in your very “progressive” mindset, Fox and Drudge are vile, fascist purveyors of lies, disinformation, and other assorted evils that should be shut down in order to ensure that only the correct opinions and “facts” are allowed to be disseminated.

    Well no, that was be substantied. I don’t think it’s a co-incidence that Fox News viewers are the least informed. Somehow it’s become ok to believe in an alternative reality.

    That you think I believe anything should be shut down exposes your own mindset. It’s so ridiculous I don’t even know why it was worth typing. Who exactly are you trying to fool?

    Also, I fail to see why someone that lives on the other side of the planet takes such an extreme interest in American politics, particularly when it is obvious you don’t understand American culture worth a shit, and routinely take far left positions on a very libertarian blog.

    NZ politics is really boring. Nothing really ever happens. It’s certainly not a wall-to-wall soap opera like Amercan politics. We never get nut-jobs running for the top job and your Republican candidates are all nutjobs this time. Who could NOT be interested?

    Which far left positions do I hold? I’d be curious to know how you conclude that.

    Nor do you actually contribute much other than linking to discredited web pages and engaging in disingenuous “discussions”. Until you behave otherwise I’m just going to consider you our resident troll.

    That’s fine, it’s obvious you’ve little interest in opinions other than within a tiny spectrum. You’re another that considers any view outside that spectrum to be for retards and arseholes. Whatever makes you comfortable man. I think that obvious attitude and continuing to prompt these sort of exchanges is far more troll-like that anything I’ve ever done.
    I’d love to see what “behaving otherwise” would look like. Falling in line I assume, being part of the echo chamber. Ignoring evidence to the contrary. Generally basing everything on assumptions etc etc. Doesn’t sound very appealing.

    Thumb up 1

  9. CM

    Oh I’m not arguing that, I’m just saying a lot of credibility has been lost in both the private and public segments predicting the economy. My prediction: I’ll know the economy is doing fine when I can go to work and not think I might get the pink slip. I’ll trust that more than any report coming out these day.

    That truly sucks that you are personally experiencing that degree of uncertainty. I’m sorry to hear it. It hasn’t gotten that bad where I work, but who knows what is around the corner.

    What’s the alternative but to go to experts for analysis? No analysis?

    Thumb up 0

  10. Dave D

    Well no, that was be substantied. I don’t think it’s a co-incidence that Fox News viewers are the least informed. Somehow it’s become ok to believe in an alternative reality.

    OMFG, do you buy into EVERTHING the libturds tell you to believe? I suppose MSNBC is your “middle of the road” destination for unbiased reporting on current events?

    Thumb up 4

  11. CM

    OMFG, do you buy into EVERTHING the libturds tell you to believe?

    True, I guess because these were done by Evil Liberal Universities, we must immediately assume the results are extremely biased. My bad.

    Or did you actually have an issue with the methodology?

    http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/
    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

    What else have I “bought into” that was wrong?

    Or shall we just add those to the other 1000 unanswered questions I’ve posed in response to being accused of something?

    Thumb up 0

  12. Section8

    Well no, that was be substantied. I don’t think it’s a co-incidence that Fox News viewers are the least informed. Somehow it’s become ok to believe in an alternative reality.

    I guess you are referring to this?

    http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

    The poll questions start at the bottom of the article. They start by reading from a list of sources. A person can answer more than one source, and it doesn’t indicate which is the primary or sole source. Based on the percentages it appears people use several sources, so this can be spun into anything. I could say CNN and Fox are my sources, and if I get the answer to the remaining questions wrong, they could pick whichever source of their choosing for the failure of my knowledge. Basically worthless.

    Also this..

    “Given the amount of time and effort the media spent covering these candidates, the
    fact that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is
    embarrassing,” said Cassino. “The fact that Fox News, the preferred media outlet for
    many of the candidates, doesn’t do better in informing viewers is very surprising.”

    Seriously? Give me 3 different news outlets and I’ll give you 3 different front runners, and by a wide margin.

    That truly sucks that you are personally experiencing that degree of uncertainty. I’m sorry to hear it. It hasn’t gotten that bad where I work, but who knows what is around the corner.

    Yeah I’ll be alright :)

    Thumb up 2

  13. CM

    That seems to be a very valid criticism. Although we probably do need to know for sure how the answers from the first question translated into how the group people in the other results.

    Even then, they could say (based on the results) that if you include Fox News in your list of news sources, it’s more likely that you’re less informed than if you didn’t.
    Would that be fair?

    Seriously? Give me 3 different news outlets and I’ll give you 3 different front runners, and by a wide margin.

    Shouldn’t the fact that all of them have had turns as front runners mean that people should be even more likely to be able to name more than one?

    Thumb up 0

  14. CM

    While the poll claims that viewers of Fox News are more misinformed than those who view no news, PublicMind’s Daniel Cassino acknowledges that “models” were used to “extrapolate” whether or not someone was a watcher of news or not, therefore he couldn’t say how many of the 612 polled watched no news. He also described a complicated formula that strips out variables such as education levels in order to determine whether watching Fox News was really to blame for misinformation.

    In the Egypt question, he said, watching Fox News made you 18 percent more likely to not know Mubarak was overthrown, while watching MSNBC made you 3 percent less likely to know.

    They asked only five knowledge questions, Cassino said, because, “that’s how much the radio station paid for. And to be honest, people don’t like answering knowledge questions because it makes them feel stupid and they hang up. They like opinion questions more.”

    Naturally, conservatives are picking apart the poll while liberals are embracing it. The left-wing watchdog group Media Matters For America posted the poll along with six others that came before it from different outlets that also demeaned viewers of Fox News. And at Mediaite.com, they’re arguing amongst themselves. One writer calls the poll “questionable academic work” because of a small sample size in a small area of the country, and because of “the questionable language used by the professors” who are “exaggerating the importance of their work.” An article at the same site, though, is headlined: “That ill-informed Fox News viewer poll? Actually it’s based on proven methodology.”

    I’m gonna have a look at the links.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Xetrov

    PublicMind’s Daniel Cassino acknowledges that “models” were used to “extrapolate” whether or not someone was a watcher of news or not, therefore he couldn’t say how many of the 612 polled watched no news.

    Wow.

    Thumb up 2

  16. AlexInCT *

    That truly sucks that you are personally experiencing that degree of uncertainty. I’m sorry to hear it. It hasn’t gotten that bad where I work, but who knows what is around the corner.

    And he is not alone there. Everyone is feeling it. Everyone. Employees and employers alike. People that own their own businesses are feeling like all it takes is a tiny bump and they will be without it. People in regular jobs feel that things are so nasty their employers could close the door and give up, or just cut a large swat of people out to drag things along until things get better.

    I am very specialized and good at what I do, and I still worry about my job. My current employer had not taken the heavy risks others in that same field had. I was lucky about that. As soon as I heard my employer back in 2008 as the country was going to shit was going to lay off people, I went looking for work elsewhere. I was lucky to find it because they cut my entire department. I ended up making out like a bandit. But things remain bleak everywhere and there is no end in sight, and I am well aware of it. The number of contract jobs out there remains weak, and I mostly have a lot of work because it is repeat customers coming straight to me for help. However, I have several very capable and hard working friends that got the pink slip just last month. I know others that got it last year, and they still can’t find work. And they are scared as hell because there is nothing out there other than the occasional part time work at reduced rates, with hundreds of people trying to get it. My favorite scary story however is about a real good and capable friend that lost his job in 2008 during the layoffs I speak off above. He decided to take a year off, came back, and still is unemployed, because now employers tell him that he was out of work too long, and that looks bad. He lost his house because of the bad economy.

    Our media keeps deceiving people because they can not admit that the policies of the left, the people they support, not only do not work, but cause damage. That is why you get reports like this. This is not about predictions but about the fact that the media has an agenda, and one that is misleading, misguided, and will hurt people if they actually believe any of the tripe the media is currently feeding us about how good things are, or are on the verge of becoming. It has been 3 years of the same nonsense. All you need to do to get some perspective, is look at how pessimistic they reported our economy was during the last administration, especially right before the 2004 election, when things where booming and the economy was flying, and compare it to how much bullshit positive coverage a real bad economy is getting because their guy is in charge.

    Thumb up 0

  17. AlexInCT *

    Well no, that was be substantied. I don’t think it’s a co-incidence that Fox News viewers are the least informed. Somehow it’s become ok to believe in an alternative reality.

    I missed this during my first pass, but I see Section8 has already pointed out how dumb and stupid people that use this survey to justify this idiotic opinion are. Thank the powers that be for Fox News and the Internets, or we would still be living in a world where the assholes in the media would control what people knew, and we would be screwed even harder than we are now.

    I watch Fox exclusively these days because I got tired of the propaganda and the attempts to bury stories that the left doesn’t like. Occasionally I go back to CNN or PMS-NBC only to validate that they are full of shit. I avoid anything not directly related to the state I live in when watching the local new, because it is a pure and simple regurgitation of bullshit DNC propaganda. Even when it is blatantly obvious that it is false.

    The most misinformed and stupid people I know get their news, when they bother to do any of tat instead of just going along with whatever the left has decided is the “popular” opinion on things, from the lefty media. Even the ones that can paste pages of links to biased idiot sites like you do CM. They also are the ones always trying to bring up some obviously idiotic thing or another to prove why they think the people that do not swallow the drivel spooned out by the left controlled media as the truth. And they are the ones that impugn not only people’s characters and motives, but accuse them of being conspiracists or liars, when they point out that the media is full of shit.

    Kind of like you are doing right now.

    Thumb up 1

  18. CM

    Wow.

    I used to run political campaigns; as part of that, I commissioned polls. I have a good sense of how polling works, what it’s good for, what makes a poll valid. Martel’s implication that 612 people is an absurdly low sample size is not only erroneous, it’s a staple of those who want to cast doubt on research for political purposes.

    Skepticism is always warranted. It is not, however, valid to take issue with basic math.

    The Fairleigh Dickinson poll released yesterday had a sample size of 612 people, all within the state of New Jersey. 612 people is a very standard size for a poll, particularly one taken within one state. Polls bear diminishing returns as you add people; that is, adding an additional 100 people to a 600-person poll has much less of a difference than adding 100 to a 100-person poll. Not that you’d want to do a 100-person poll. The margin of error for a poll of that size is 10%, as opposed to 4% for a 600-person poll.

    Let’s look at recent polling for the 2012 race (polling, I might add, that Martel has referred to at least six times in the last month without comment). In Iowa, twenty-seven polls have been commissioned since May of 2011. The average sample size for all of those polls? 528 people.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/that-ill-informed-fox-news-viewer-poll-actually-its-based-on-proven-methodology/

    Thumb up 1

  19. CM

    I watch Fox exclusively these days

    This is the least surprising thing I’ve ever heard in my life. That’s the ultimate example of proof being in the pudding.

    And they are the ones that impugn not only people’s characters and motives, but accuse them of being conspiracists or liars, when they point out that the media is full of shit.

    You’re being a conspiracist when you invent things and pretend it’s fact. You’re dishonest in a whole host of different ways. This current misrepresentation right here is an excellent example. Or the fact that you misrepresented the Reuters story in your opening post.

    Feel free to change your method of operation any time you like.

    Thumb up 1

  20. CM

    Not according to this study.

    If a member of Congress cited a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organisation apparently has a “bias” making it an ideological mirror of the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This is apparented what constituted “media bias”.
    Hmmmmmmmmm.
    This meant that the NRA was barely considered conservative, the RAND corporation was considered liberal, the Council on Foreign Relations was considered liberal, and ACLU was conservative.

    From that link:

    They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

    I wonder if they counted it in the opposite column when they mentioned them in a negative way?

    Anyway, that study wasn’t looking at misinformation. If a source is misinforming, does it really matter if the source is liberal or conservative?

    Thumb up 0

  21. Xetrov

    Anyway, that study wasn’t looking at misinformation. If a source is misinforming, does it really matter if the source is liberal or conservative?

    Misinformation had nothing to do with what I was responding to, why would my link have anything to do with misinformation?

    Beyond that, your opinion on the study does not have any weight on any potential flaw in the methodology.

    Thumb up 1

  22. CM

    Misinformation had nothing to do with what I was responding to, why would my link have anything to do with misinformation?

    Sorry yeah I shouldn’t have been so lazy with that. My bad.

    Beyond that, your opinion on the study does not have any weight on any potential flaw in the methodology.

    Does it make sense to you though? That the RAND corporation is considered far more liberal than the ACLU?

    Thumb up 0

  23. Miguelito

    Bah. you can’t trust the RAND corporation…

    OK, here’s what we’ve got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people — under the supervision of the reverse vampires — are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We’re through the looking glass, here, people…

    Thumb up 0

  24. AlexInCT *

    This is the least surprising thing I’ve ever heard in my life. That’s the ultimate example of proof being in the pudding.

    Are you seriously implying that I am less informed than you? Because I find that not just laughable, but deeply sad. You are a partisan hack pretending to be middle of the road, likely so you can then spout leftist bullshit and hope you get a pass from people that have not caught on to you yet, while I admit my bias outright. Seriously, if you were trying to insult me or conservatives that watch Fox News, all you did here is validate for us your kind is just as stupid as we know you are.

    Did you purposely ignore why I do not bother with the other news outlets anymore, or did you just need to ignore the fact that I actually wanted news and not propaganda, because that fucks up your world view and narrative? At least you didn’t resort to accusing me of being a racist, homophobe, sexist, and evil idiot, and just called me an idiot, which I guess is a step forward for leftist idiots like you.

    Seriously, you are pathetic.

    Thumb up 3

  25. Xetrov

    Does it make sense to you though? That the RAND corporation is considered far more liberal than the ACLU?

    According to this specific study, is the RAND corporation far more liberal than the ACLU? Is that even possible to determine according to the methodology?

    Thumb up 1

  26. CM

    Are you seriously implying that I am less informed than you?

    Absolutely. You’re constantly and consistently getting things wrong. Often because you don’t even seem to understand your own source material. I’ve lost count. You seem determined to be misinformed and you’re actively proud of it.

    Seriously, if you were trying to insult me or conservatives that watch Fox News, all you did here is validate for us your kind is just as stupid as we know you are.

    No, I wasn’t trying to insult anyone. I was responding to Seattle’s comment.

    Did you purposely ignore why I do not bother with the other news outlets anymore, or did you just need to ignore the fact that I actually wanted news and not propaganda, because that fucks up your world view and narrative?

    I’m aware of your narrative. Yet your supposed example of the “bullshit by these assholes DNC propagandists in the LSM” in this very thread demonstrates the opposite of what you claim. Again. Yet again. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve pointed this out.

    At least you didn’t resort to accusing me of being a racist, homophobe, sexist, and evil idiot, and just called me an idiot, which I guess is a step forward for leftist idiots like you.

    When have I ever accused you of being any of those? Well, I’ve probably called you an idiot. But you’ve accused me of most of those and much more. So I can only conclude you’re holding up a mirror.

    Seriously, you are pathetic.

    Yeah, that must be it. Somehow my patheticness makes you post garbage. Sorry about that.

    Thumb up 1

  27. balthazar

    Absolutely. You’re constantly and consistently getting things wrong. Often because you don’t even seem to understand your own source material. I’ve lost count. You seem determined to be misinformed and you’re actively proud of it.

    Whoa, now that’s some irony right there for ya. LOL

    Thumb up 3

  28. CM

    Whoa, now that’s some irony right there for ya. LOL

    Where is the irony? I’m constantly pointing out how he’s gotten something wrong, or where his evidence is either no evidence at all, or evidence of the opposite. Where has he or anyone else done that to me (to even remotely the same extent)?
    My bet is that you’ll just add another “your is moran” or similar.

    Thumb up 0

  29. Xetrov

    Yes.

    Your link explains why that’s not true how you presented it, and not relevant to the study.

    The second apparent anomaly is the RAND Corporation, which has a fairly liberal average score, 60.4. We mentioned this finding to some employees of RAND, who told us they were not surprised. While RAND strives to be middle-of-the-road ideologically, the more conservative scholars at RAND tend to work on military studies, while the more liberal scholars tend to work on domestic studies. Because the military studies are sometimes classified and often more technocratic than the domestic studies, the media and members of Congress tend to cite the domestic studies disproportionately. As a consequence, RAND appears liberal when judged by these citations. It is important to note that this fact—that the research at RAND is more conservative than the numbers in Table 1 suggest—will not bias our results. To see this, think of RAND as two think tanks: RAND I, the left-leaning think tank which produces the research that the media and members of Congress tend to cite, and RAND II, the conservative think tank which produces the research that they tend not to cite. Our results exclude RAND II from the analysis. This causes no more bias than excluding any other think tank that is rarely cited in Congress or the media.

    Thumb up 1

  30. balthazar

    Where is the irony? I’m constantly pointing out how he’s gotten something wrong, or where his evidence is either no evidence at all, or evidence of the opposite. Where has he or anyone else done that to me (to even remotely the same extent)?
    My bet is that you’ll just add another “your is moran” or similar.

    Your self delusion is incredibly strong. I wonder which of your personalities is writing this time? You calling someone out on it is ironic, since you do it all the fucking time.

    Thumb up 3

  31. CM

    Your self delusion is incredibly strong. I wonder which of your personalities is writing this time? You calling someone out on it is ironic, since you do it all the fucking time.

    You come from the same nothing-but-accusation school as Alex. When it’s pointed out that the accusation is hollow, you simply repeat the accusation using slightly different words. You’ve just done it again.

    Thumb up 1

  32. AlexInCT *

    Absolutely. You’re constantly and consistently getting things wrong.

    Ah yeah. I am getting it wrong because I point out the leftist propaganda and the bullshit. Seriously, I understand why you have to say this stupid shit, but damn, have you no shame what so ever?

    Often because you don’t even seem to understand your own source material.

    Here we go again. Actually the thing is that i understand te source material and who wrote the bullshit, and call it out. That I think is what bugs you the most, that I point out the left’s talking points are just that: bullshit talking points. You on the other hand keep linking liberal nonsense from liberal nonsense sites, get called on it, not just by me, but by others, despite the fact that most people just avoid you anyway, and pretend you have an argument to keep making. That’s a sign of someone that is vested in spreading lies and propaganda. Hence your continued attack against me even though I have turned out to be right every time you tried to hijack what I was saying because the DNC propagandists in the LSM had not yet gotten to spinning it in a way that you liked or because I pointed out they where spinning it. It ain’t fooling anyone.

    I’ve lost count. You seem determined to be misinformed and you’re actively proud of it.

    Coming from you this makes for some serious laughter meathead. Shit, all you do is try to pass off liberal bullshit as fact, then get pissed when people like me point out it is liberal nonsense. Case in point that idiotic survey you claim points out Fox viewers are less informed. But I am the one that gets things wrong. Shya!

    No, I wasn’t trying to insult anyone. I was responding to Seattle’s comment.

    Now you are trying to pile on the insults while pretending not to do so. Fools nobody.

    I’m aware of your narrative. Yet your supposed example of the “bullshit by these assholes DNC propagandists in the LSM” in this very thread demonstrates the opposite of what you claim. Again. Yet again. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve pointed this out.

    Erm, what are you talking about? Seriously. I pointed out how convenient and low key the reporting on some major inflated home sales numbers for 2009-2010, when things kept going south, conveniently got dropped by 20%, with nobody in the LSM going bat shit about the information because it would impact their guy, and pointed out that this was them setting us up to then claim things where getting better because now they could make the false equivocation, against these new lower numbers, that things were getting better, for propaganda purposes, and that is exactly how this story plays out, and you think I got it wrong?

    Fuck CM, you are priceless.

    When have I ever accused you of being any of those?

    Have trouble understanding English? My point was precisely that you so far have not really gone there directly, even if you insinuate it constantly. You like to play the misunderstood good guy while you really are the asshole.

    Well, I’ve probably called you an idiot.

    Looks like since that feeling is mutual, we have something in common.

    But you’ve accused me of most of those and much more. So I can only conclude you’re holding up a mirror.

    I have not called you either a racist or a homophobe. I have called you a liberal propagandist, pointed out how dumb what you believe in is, because none of it works out the way you leftists like to pretend it will, and told you that you are a fanatical green leftist twit. If you think those are worse, then more power to you. As for the mirror, see my point that you continue to insinuate things then act defensive when you are called on it? I bet you pretend otherwise.

    Yeah, that must be it. Somehow my patheticness makes you post garbage. Sorry about that.

    Actually your patheticness is this desperate need to pretend that things you don’t like are not true or garbage and the time you waste trying to convince others to agree with you. Again: just because you say something you don’t like is not true doesn’t make that false or wrong. But you can keep at it. It is fun to watch you make a fool of yourself.

    Thumb up 1

  33. AlexInCT *

    You come from the same nothing-but-accusation school as Alex. When it’s pointed out that the accusation is hollow, you simply repeat the accusation using slightly different words. You’ve just done it again.

    I guess I will take the liberty to speak for all of us that point out how full of it you are, and appologize for not being willing to let you define for us how we need to see things. The fault is ours. Not yours for constantly accusing us of being the ones making up shit because we are not moronic robots that lap up the liberal propaganda and then spew it back out like you do.

    You are basically comic relief dude.

    Thumb up 3

  34. Poosh

    Well no, that was be substantied. I don’t think it’s a co-incidence that Fox News viewers are the least informed

    Based on what, exactly? A study by a bunch of left-wing “academic” assholes?

    lmao, and you think Fox News viewers are gullible, uncritical and miss-informed?

    Thumb up 0