Media Ignoring Trump Just Slapped New Sanctions On Russia?!

Pogo already pointed out the paradox that the OP tries to claim "the media ignoring" something and for his evidence presents ---- the media.

That's sufficient to expose the thread but his title is lying anyway. The Rump administration didn't "slap new sanctions" at all; it blacklisted two specific operations for sidestepping already-existing sanctions. Apparently he didn't even read his own media -- the one he claims doesn't exist. Whelp, I guess if something doesn't exist, you can't read it can you.

Literacy: a lost art.

I already suggested the OP should request the title be changed. I already suggested you would probably find the irrational need to explain yourself, when I simply agreed with you, but neglected to praise your astute observation.

Sorry if I only implied you are a partisan hack. Next time I'll try and be more direct to assist your literary concerns.

Of course the section excised as suddenly inconvenient went:

I'm sure Pogo can find something wrong with at least 6-7 word choices (don't really know what the over/under on that currently is if anyone is betting). He's kind of anal that way as long as it bashes people or ideas he doesn't necessarily like. In situations where he supports the general sway, whether or not he takes the same effort to make such a case, is less than as enthusiastic at best.

That's gotta be one of the weirdest 180s upon getting one's ass handed to one that I've ever seen pulled here. The poster must think he's engaged a Romulan cloaking device. :dunno:

I am pretty sure I suggested you wouldn't have trouble finding a problem with whatever was posted, for whatever reason you may deem necessary. Sorry if you got confused and think that means something it doesn't. Your desire to explain your reasoning, or anyone else's lack thereof, is still consistent with the stipulations already addressed, and not contested (unless of course you would like to suggest that abiding by those conditions somehow proves them inconsistent, which would very much be a possibility if in fact they were consitent).

iu
 

Forum List

Back
Top