i've got to say, i'm honestly surprised you're this unsmart.

i say that words have definitions, and connotations which are sometimes different than their literal definition. then i give the literal definition of a connotation.

then u say "oh yeah, look at these definitions, you're wrong"....

honestly this is an embarrassing display of a man your age's grasp on english. did you ever hear the word connotation before today?

the thing there was that fender somehow completely misjudged the national conversation and thought that David Hogg had muhammad's goo from south park and nobody was allowed to criticize him and it was super scandalous to apply any pejorative to him. I wouldn't have any druthers about about psychopath vs sociopathy, only that the latter was the appropriate word for the activity being described. I mean geez, the distinction between the two is a little more pronounced than libel v defamation or jealousy v envy.

it got leaked that Trump used the word "spy" specifically to rile up his uneducated fan base. It's working too, I think I read somewhere that 59% of America believes Mueller hasn't found anything with his investigation (think it was Vox article) despite the fact that there's been what, like 5 guilty pleas and over a dozen indictments?

This post was edited by Horford on May 25 2018 10:57am

Inb4 he makes up credentials about being an English teacher and post some riddles to show he's super smart

yup like i said, just a cheap use of a connotation

which anonymous sources said that to which media outlet who was desperately attempting to reframe the controversy?

jesus goom this one is dripping in face validity, do u really need a pen and paper named source? the whitehouse carefully frames everything to have connotations one way or the other, that's politics 101. Kneejerk calling source is for lazy millennial and autists.



well i know you're not lazy, so process of elimination?

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 25 2018 11:04am

now that's some quality journalism right there, goes right up there with the likes of creelman and hearst

The goalposts always move in these discussions. First it's Mueller hasn't found anything, then it's Mueller hasn't found any collusion, then it's collusion isn't a crime, etc etc. You can be sure that if real collusion is found(which I would still bet against), self-described "patriots" will be on television talking about how a campaign conspiring with the Russians to win an election isn't a big deal.