Gromnir

hmm. is indeed tragic that others died, including his daughter. we also take no pleasure in knowing kobe died-- he had a long life ahead o' him and perhaps he coulda' atoned. nevertheless, is hard to forget june 30, 2003. even if you are utter convinced kobe were innocent o' accusations, he were a complete d-bag during his interviews with cops. threw a **** stained shirt at a female cop. mentioned how shaq had already paid over a million dollars to disgruntled women and that in retrospect kobe shoulda' done the same. told cops his rough sex antics, which left bruising and vaginal tears inconsistent with consensual sex, were just his thing, and cops could ask his mistress for corroboration. serious? criminal case were already at jury selection when da dropped 'cause victim no longer were willing to cooperate. victim and kobe had come to a settlement in their civil case. somebody had leaked the victim's identity and the 19-year-old were getting death threats. kobe's defense team were already making public the victim's prior sexual partners/encounters. colorado literal changed their rape shield law a couple years later 'cause o' the kobe case-- couldn't bring up prior sexual activity o' victim during trial, but the kobe team (obvious with kobe approval) did pre-trial, so... false rape accusations do happen. they is statistical rare by almost all estimates, but it does happen. we tend to give folks benefit o' the doubt until there is more than he said, she said. even so, there were considerable physical evidence, a quasi confession and kobe were just such an a-hole during the hole kerfuffle it were difficult to keep pretending he were a swell guy. got a portrait right next to ben roethlisberger in our rogue's gallery o' athletes who seeming got away with it. is unfortunate kobe died, 'cause a lifetime o' good deeds is what it were take to balance the scales.

didn't have shady pegged as a who fan. today were a bad day for our dogs. the little ones got attacked by two dogs (labs... lab mix?) that were loose while a housesitter were distracted. ... just a bad situation all the way around and am knowing Gromnir is gonna look like the bad guy even though our dogs were on leashes and needed medical aid for their injuries. nothing life threatening. thank goodness. when situation escalated (which were immediately) we took off our hoodie, wrapped it around our arm and beat the two attacking canines away from our dogs. am suspecting we injured the dogs and the poor housesitter, who showed up on the scene just as we were finally dislodging his (sorta his) dogs from ours, clear were unprepared to handle his new problem. he likely needed take his dogs to the vet for more serious aid than our dogs required as we were not gentle. we got the panicking fellows name and phone number and a brief explanation as to why his dogs were loose before we ran off, carrying a bleeding dog under each arm as we trotted to our car. our vet bill ended up being an altogether reasonable $612... $11 were for one o' those stoopid cones which am aware is a waste o money but we were not in a mood to haggle or argue over $11 and tax. one of our dogs were given methadone and he is still in an altered state. am hoping the buzz lasts a few hours more 'cause the take-home meds they gave him for pain is gabapentin, which given our personal pain issues am aware is a nerve pain medicine. the dog is not suffering nerve pain such that gabapentin would be prescribed if were a person suffering same injuries. so why gabapentin? dr. explained to us how 'cause o' strict ca controlled substances laws, he couldn't give us anything stronger, so point o' the meds appears to be to keep the dog groggy and listless as 'posed to pain free. we took a few scratches in the kerfuffle and a rather nasty bite/puncture which looks ugly but don't seem to be infected. should go to the hospital as am knowing how easily dog bites is getting infected, but we did the first aid bit as best we could and am crossing fingers. go to hospital is problematic 'cause we would need ask somebody to look after our injured dogs. there is people we can call, more than a couple, but will hold off unless we develop a fever. we do feel terrible 'bout injuring a couple o' dogs. full stop. am not making excuses.

am knowing it is a joke, but reminds us how old we are. HA! Good Fun!

so a dismissal o' any and all washington post journalists for their newspaper efforts is your defense o' bias regarding the efforts o' two writers with post credits who penned a book. gotcha. lord knows we didn't say a statement must be true if author isn't sued. horrible logic. just because tendency not to sue makes truth more likely, absent o' legal action doesn't guarantee truth. never said or implied such but am not surprised you would logic fail your way into that blunder. HA! Good Fun!

our current dogs don't dig much, except to get free o' our yard. 'cause o' the small dogs, we needed put chicken wire 'round all our fencing 'cause they could easily squeeze 'tween the bars. the little dogs were not diggers, so we thought we were golden with the chicken wire solution. came home one day and the dogs were loose. after a moment o' panic, we resolved to set out to look for 'em before it got dark and then noticed they were standing right behind us. clearly they were close by and saw us come home... followed us from the garage to the back gate w/o us realizing. the dogs dug their way out o' the yard at the gate, so to discourage future escapes we broke up a bunch o' unglazed ceramic tile and placed the shards at the gates where the dogs had so recent made their way out o' the yard. before the chicken wire were up, the dogs could leave the yard at any point along the fence line, and did. inexplicably, after adding the chicken wire, the dogs has never attempted to get out o' the yard by digging anywhere but at the gates. lucky for us. the busted-up ceramic tile solved our digging/escape problem, but is just weird the dogs has never attempted to dig anywhere but at the gates. clear doomed to never reach the top o' the food chain is our dogs. HA! Good Fun!

not paying attention. it were a book excerpt. not washington post. writers o' the book are journalists at the post, but editors and owners of the paper didn't contribute to the book and do not receive credit. unless you are indulging in transparent bias, you dedicate a bit more effort if you are gonna criticize authors for habitual fails o' research. unnamed sources is common in such books. woodward has used unnamed sources and trump has praised woodward's efforts... right up until woodward did a book 'bout trump. however, credibility is often more easily discerned when folks such as trump do not sue the authors for libel, 'cause then there would need be discovery. last time trump tried such it did not turn out well for him. trump: a true story if trump, who is notorious for bringing lawsuits 'gainst people (and also for being taken to court) doesn't sue authors for libel, is lending substantial credence to the claims in the book. truth is a defense after all. even so, am agreeing overreliance on unnamed sources is bad. am understanding from a recent npr review that while more than a few unnamed sources is utilized by the authors o' the book, which should make a person leery o' claims, is also a large number o' named and corroborated sources... more than enough such that we predict trump will be setting twitter ablaze when book is released. HA! Good Fun!

the headlines were extreme misleading. said stuff such as covington catholic boy who brought $275 mil against cnn win settlement. these cases are tough to win. standard isn't different for the press than it is for you, which is probable a relief, eh? you may post stuff on a messageboard 'bout public persons and/or events which is untrue and not fear any legal reprisals, right up until is shown you knew something were untrue. prove such knowledge is difficult. 'cause is a timely example, we will mention how the one richard jewel case which finally made it to court and were not settled were determined in favor o' the newspaper. a news media source settling for some amount to avoid more publicity is unsurprising even when law is actual on the side o' the press. is an excerpt from a book which were extensive researched. doesn't take much imagination to figure out how the journalists who wrote the book might glean the impressions o' folks contemporaneous with a few o' trumps more bizarre and hostile comments. "general kelly, when the President referred to the collected military leadership as a dopes and babies with whom he would not go to war, what was your reaction?" HA! Good Fun!

have been to spain a few times. once we even flew economy class, which is kinda like being stuffed in a bag for the trip. weren't terrified save for our first trip to barcelona where we were surprised with a previous undisclosed and steep "tourist tax" at our initial hotel, as well as being shocked by how thorough and numerous were the pickpockets. we knew better than to carry genuine valuables such as a wallet filled with cash in pockets, but is only a slight exaggeration to observe how we could walk 100 meters in barcelona and discover all our pockets were empty. HA! Good Fun!

am agreeing on qbr, particular as it disproportionately favors mobile qbs as 'posed to pure pocket passers. nevertheless, instead o' a long-winded analysis o' the past three seasons from rodgers, which wouldn't be uncharacteristic o' one o' our posts, we thought a bit o' shorthand were warranted. can't recall speaking to a packers fan for any length o' time who hasn't expressed a degree o' concern regarding rodgers over at least past two years. such fans is often quick to find reasons why rodgers is having difficulties, but there is recognition o' diminished performance from the league mvp qb. HA! Good fun!

our understanding is the case were settled. do you have additional info? considering how the similar case against wapo were initially dismissed, is more than a mere possibility that whatever the "maga hat boy" team were given could have been little more than enough to recoup costs. tough to count this as much o' a win w/o more info. speaking o' washington post, and to avoid the double ‘You’re a bunch of dopes and babies’: Inside Trump’s stunning tirade against generals we can post a few quotes for those blocked, but might be pointless. at this stage in the administration, the revelations is not shocking while at same time being a gut punch for any but true believers. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking a few packer fans, people who has had to watch rodgers the last two years, might disagree with your rankings. https://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr/_/seasontype/2 HA! Good Fun!

every few years there needs be a most fraudulent. broncos in 2015 with peyton manning having a passer rating in bottom three o' nfl? 'course 'cause manning were qb folks somehow forget how good the defense were... deserves a place alongside 85-86 bears and 00-01 ravens. the bears and ravens both had far better offenses to take pressure off the defense. at this point, with teams remaining, am suspecting unless the 49ers win, the fraudulent label is gonna stick to whomever takes home the hardware. regardless, in football most fraudulent is a label which lingers in memory 'bout as long as that guy from memento could recollect. so enjoy the playoff run as long as it lasts. HA! Good Fun!

can't imagine how funny it is being criticized for disfunction and creep when is coming from the guy who proclaims indifference to murder. situation is so out of touch with normal it boggles the mind. ontopic... 'cause somebody needs be: Kenneth Starr, Alan Dershowitz to join Trump’s legal team HA! Good Fun!

were weird and fun for us to get to kill tob Gromnir, but it bothered us how our player character in the game had to be the idjit getting used by melissan while our namesake were the one who were successful thwarting melisasan and uncovering her plot until we show up in saradush. due to limits o' bg2-style dialogue choices, we must needs treat the Gromnir npc like cassandra. as such we had a moment o' remorse (brief) before we got to the killing and l007ing o' npc Gromnir. @Malcador shouldn't cause much practical trouble... unless you look dangerous (i.e. dark complected) and/or are traveling from wrong country? terrible part is how even if trump isn't reelected, this policy is improbable to be changed back to pre-trump norms. is so much easier to take freedoms and liberties from persons than it is to grant 'em. HA! Good Fun! ps a certain mod forgets... again. he were offended at our suggestion o' his indifference o' reporter murder. 'course then we show his older (and apparent forgotten) post making just such a claim and only then do we get his sudden admission o' blanket indifference to murder. were so funny we immortalized in signature... and yet the mod still persists with the assault on facts and decency. good show.

chiefs should beat the titans. however, neither afc team has a particular strong defense, and at the moment, the titans run game is in high gear. am not thinking the titans can slow down the chiefs, but if they do, then there is a good chance the titans beat 'em into submission in the third and fourth quarter. playing at arrowhead may not be much o' an advantage for the chiefs in spite o' the fact it is statistical a major boon. is january and arrowhead is cold in january. a nice day at arrowhead in january is gonna mean freezing. derrick henry is between 240-250lbs. in freezing temps, regardless o' wind or snow or whatnot, tackling a guy that size takes a serious toll. tackling anybody for four quarters in freezing temps hurts, but a guy like henry is especial punishing in such conditions. as long as the chiefs don't get outta reach and force the titans to pass on first thru third down with every possession, eventually the titans ol and big rb is gonna have an impact on a rather mediocre chiefs D. the titans, if they can keep the game close enough to keep running the ball on most downs, will have a chance to take the game from the chiefs in improbable fashion. 'course turnovers is always the wildcard factor even though it is probable the most significant indicator o' success when looking at a game with benefit o' hindsight. neither the titans or the chiefs are particular turnover prone. am not gonna try and guess turnovers. HA! Good Fun!

have been watching giri/haji on netflix. is a bit self-indulgent with shakespeare levels o' DRAMA, but is both well acted and directed even if rare does twenty minutes elapse w/o somebody crying. am unfamiliar with pretty much all o' the asian actors in the show, but for the most part they are excellent. won't spoil, but will note am gonna watch entire season 1 (eight episodes) w/i a few days time, which is unusual for us. side note: one thing which always bothers us 'bout bbc cop shows and crime dramas is how the london cops is almost universally inept, with maybe one or two super cop exceptions. based on watching bbc, one would come to the conclusion the bulk o' uk detectives/inspectors are better suited to working at a furniture consignment store as 'posed to investigating crime. curiously with US movies and tv, local cops can be competent, but fbi agents who are not arrogant buffoons is exceptions. am suspecting there is a cultural significance to the differences in portrayal o' US and UK cops, but am not curious enough to divine causes or meanings. HA! Good Fun!

so while the reddit coop post came first, you didn't really start the ruse until afterwards? is getting difficult to keep track o' all o' what you is admitting now to be lies. lie now or lie then kinda question, particular coming from an admitted hardcore lefty, eh? such stuff would follow from a hardcore lefty, but not this time eh? *eye-roll* however, your image link is helpful. the bioware developers were having fun with Gromnir when they put a namesake in tob, but is not coincidence they made his character able to identify melissan as mendacious. were a job skill. so post a link o' the tob Gromnir calling out the game villain for her deceit? is perhaps an unintended bit o' honesty you would link such... or were that mistake somehow part o' the ruse too? every Gromnir claim 'bout melissan were true. saradush (sp?) were indeed melissan's trap for surviving bhaalspawn and she was using the tob main character to kill the one person who had exposed her efforts. life imitates art, eh? though tn is no melissan. *chuckle* and what were the ruse again? make multiple pages o' bad and unsupportable arguments to see if we would keep picking 'em apart? that was your plan? HA! and where are we not staying on-topic? pretty much all our posts have politics and world news content. definite all since we pointed out the need to stay on-topic or risk censor and censure. you can't even keep that point straight, eh? have additional content in a post is not violating board rules. have a cnn debate coverage post and then reference favorite restaurants in iowa? would not get post censored 'cause o' the gastronomical side-content, eh? we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. not difficult. tn, on the other hand, has abandoned all pretext. 'course he claims he had abandoned legit on-topic discusion o' the bernie debate pages past... though am not certain anymore if we count the reddit joke or not. regardless, wouldn't be shocked if one o' the other mods did step in eventual. once again, to keep our post on-topic, 66% of Americans want John Bolton to testify have seen as high as 70% for witnesses, but am not certain is enough. need core republican voters to get on board with the notion. collins is in a mostly blue state and is up for reelection, so she might vote for witnesses even if core republicans do not want such. HA! Good Fun! response to tn late edit: am seeing you did indeed try and reimagine your image link mistake as somehow intentional or laudable. thanks for being predictable. however, much as with the other mod who can't stop himself from a Gromnir argument, am gonna need end this since tn can't seem to control his self. you have the field. enjoy it.

am gonna give special consideration @Guard Dog 'cause he is the one person we frequent disagree with who will actual drop an issue before we do. find his reserve admirable, but don't tell him we said so. regardless, rare is Gromnir the last guy posting in a disagreement, even though may not seem that way if you has been on receiving end once or twice. am likely to get folks riled to point where they refuse to quit... even after they insist they has quit. but again, to stay on-topic... am genuine curious 'bout impeachment witnesses. is not a particular compelling reason to forgo witnesses, but as we said already, this is a political trial and issues o' probative value and relevance and every other standard gets thrown into the chipper shredder. has anybody seen any fox news polls regarding whether republican voters are interested in seeing witnesses? am suspecting such will be the tea leaves worth reading as to likelihood o' witnesses. if the core republicans want witnesses, then we get 'em. republican senators got no political reason motivation to call witnesses if core republicans do not want such. @Bartimaeus the image is an attempt at irony? so many misfires from tn such as failing to recognize how his ruse started before Gromnir were even involved in the cnn debate discussion. the character from tob named after Gromnir appears to be a paranoid who makes wild accusations. however, it turns out that the tob Gromnir character were correct and the only game character to recognize melissan for what she actually were. *shrug* based on the image and game context, we would say this were tn's attempt at an apology... if we weren't certain o' the opposite. so it goes. HA! Good Fun!

dear lord. bored now as you were done previous? 'course were all a ruse, even when you were making such posts before Gromnir posted regarding the debate? were all made up nonsense? so who exact do you want help sent for? oh, and keep in mind invoke your fellow mod is particular funny. last time we went through similar nonsense he acted insulted that we accused him o' indifference to the murder o' a reporter. 'course when confronted with an actual post doing just such, he did the "double-down" bit you mocked earlier and then took a step further; the guy who were affronted by us suggesting he were indifferent to reporter murder then admitted that he were indifferent to "almost any" murders not affecting him or his. this lunatic spiral is familiar to us. two of a kind, eh? but you were never serious and it were all a joke in an attempt to see how far Gromnir would go with it? *chuckle* not first time we has had *insert hurt feelings/embarrassed poster* use that one. regardless, as we has had to do more than once with your fellow, you should try and stay on-topic or one o' the real mods will be more likely to intervene. if you are gonna do nothing but try and start a victim's o' Gromnir support group for fellow mods, you are gonna get the thread pruned. @Lexx you will need be a bit more specific regarding mitch. so many options. however, the thing is there are almost no rules for senator behaviour in impeachment trials, and those rules may be changed with a simple majority at any time. is one reason we have mentioned the andrew johnson trial as the best example o' what to look forward to 'posed to clinton when folks were advocating for an impeachment trial. we meant as a warning. with an almost european degree o' partisanship infecting the US fed legislative body, the shenanigans surrounding what is a political trial with 100 judges, 100 jurors, no fixed rules and no punishment for malfeasance is a recipe for ugly on a large scale. mitch is gonna do what is political expedient. how many people can name the US senators who were involved in the rampant witness tampering and bribery during the andrew johnson trial? were more than a couple. as much as has been made o' the historic significance o' the impeachment trial, in as little as twenty years most people will have forgotten any o' the senatorial players in the trump trial. mitch knows which way the wind blows. god help us all. HA! Good Fun!

can't expect the landlord o' a property to fix broader societal issues. the thing is, am suspecting the sheriff's department were being a bit mercenary. the sheriff's department can charge the landlord with costs related to evictions... send 'em a bill. haven't read the story, but am gonna guess the landlord is not an local citizen who scraped together his/her life's savings to buy and then flip a property. am gonna go out on a limb and guess the landlord is a deep-pocket business located somewhere Not in the bay area. local, in Gromnir's neck o' the woods, show up with a tac force and all the bells and whistles for an eviction is gonna result in a bill to landlord totalling thousands o' dollars. am suspecting you can multiply costs to landlord by 10 in the bay area. the law can't take into account the financial well being o' the landlord. law treats same the landlord who is just a single investor who mortgaged his own home a second time to buy the property where the women were squatting or is MegaCorp Inc. don't pretend the sheriff's department is equal blind to the realities o' the situation. @TrueNeutral admitting you didn't actual watch the debate in spite o' dogged criticism o' cnn moderation of the debate is Not helping with your defense o' bias. co opted your criticism from reddit? *chuckle* thanks for sharing though. musta' forgot to mention earlier your lack o' knowledge o' the actual debate. another thing you forgot, eh? HA! Good Fun!

"Also yes, as you correctly surmise, I did use this specific situation because the difference in how the candidates were treated was immediately clear in this example as it is the only example where Warren was directly asked to follow-up on Bernie." indeed. perhaps you need be checked since you cannot recall even a few posts in the rearview mirror. our statements were correct as to why you used the example and you finally admitted the intent, as if it were ever in doubt. as to bias, the hardcore lefty said he purposeful left off gender, (and inserted baby-eating) as if doing so were somehow helpful to you making a point? HA! issue o' intent were clear, and with each additional post you is doing an equal bangup job o' dispelling the suggestion you are biased. please continue. perhaps you will have an epiphany moment. oh, and speaking o' alzheimer's moments, please recollect how first you were arguing it weren't the baby-eater bit itself which were the problem... right up until Gromnir pointed out you highlighted with your parody. already forgot? more recent you has forgotten how you were done with the debate, so... HA! Good Fun!

am just happy you recognized your initial fail. accuse us o' misinterpreting your intent with the example? you admit we got your intent correct. success. the issue o' your bias affecting your judgement is not relevant to intent btw. bias is frequent unintentional and is less apparent to the biased individual than to observers. we wouldn't expect you to make the connection, but your continued defense o' an unfair characterization does increase our certainty that your recent admitted "hardcore leftie" position has perhaps colored your pov such that you cannot recognize which media coverage o' bernie is fair and which is not. bias. HA! Good Fun!

we call those days "summer" in ca. last summer weren't near as bad as were the previous year, but we nevertheless had weeks where the smoke were so thick the sun were not visible save for a couple hours before and after noon, and even then it were a lurid bloody-red... much like our perpetual irritated eyes. one o' our cars, which we were parking in the driveway in violation o' our cc&rs (shhh, don't tell local security) would daily become covered with a greasy film o' ash. ash is s'posed to be dry and powdery, like the stuff in your fireplace or in the bottom o' your weber grill, yes? unfortunately, whatever grasses and trees and shrubbery were burning made the ash... tacky. have never been a fan o' summers in our part o' ca, but they are increasingly becoming literal unlivable with predictable weeks o' hazardous air quality. only positive is in ca, unlike other places we have lived, pretty much everybody has air conditioning, so we could close windows w/o fear o' heat stroke. 2018 were worse. much worse. were months o' fires and smoke and ash. nevertheless, as apocalyptic as the view from our window appeared in 2018, things in australia 2020-21 appear even worse, so you got our sympathy. HA! Good Fun!

as to bernie not being a mod, in point o' fact, after calling warren a liar, it would be common (if in this case ill-advised) for a mod to give the defamed person a chance to respond. not exact same, but such courtesy is codified in parliamentary rules o' procedure. instead, cnn clear and purposeful redirected the issue at hand and gave warren a question which were on-topic but did not suggest or imply or demand warren to respond to bernie's implied accusation o' deceit. pretend otherwise if you will, but bernie coulda' responded to warren w/o implying she is a liar. cnn purposeful avoided providing warren with a follow-up which would force her to respond to bernie's claim. a less professional mod woulda' done as you suggested they had in your caricature. cnn took a different route, one which offered warren a chance to avoid calling out bernie truthfulness. the manner in which cnn asked bernie and elizabeth 'bout the gender issue allowed both candidates a chance to respond while also moving the debate as a whole forward. the question were asked professional. weren't loaded. weren't, "what would you say to women voters offended by your comments," kinda nonsense. is not incumbent 'pon the press to treat candidates with kid gloves, and they didn't. asked a straightforward question that were on the mind o' a majority o' viewers. didn't frame unfair. were one o' the few positive moments for cnn from the debate. coulda' handled wrong so easy, but instead they did fair and managed to move the debate forward w/o incident. btw, claim there were no other way for bernie to respond is ridiculous. coulda' pointed out as Gromnir did earlier in this thread how an opinion that 2018 women candidates didn't look like winners were not same as saying a woman couldn't win. after all, bernie is running, so by default we must expect he believes he has a good shot o' winning and hopeful believes he has a better shot than any o' the other democrat candidates, male or female. if bernie believes he will win, which we hope he does believe, then by necessity he believes any woman candidate will not win. bernie and his team had days to prepare for the question everybody knew were coming, and you may believe best way to respond were to insist forceful warren were wrong, but is clear such were not the only option. is arrogant and biased to suggest bernie answer were the one and true answer. "Also yes, as you correctly surmise, I did use this specific situation because the difference in how the candidates were treated was immediately clear in this example as it is the only example where Warren was directly asked to follow-up on Bernie." so your earlier protest were kinda bs. is not that we failed to suss your intent with the example provided. you confirmed that we were exact on-target with your motivation for posting your baby eating example. well thanks for that bit o' honesty. now, perhaps you think cnn coverage o' bernie has been unfair. perhaps you think bernie has been getting unfair coverage in general from media. we agree. fact the gender topic were leaked, two years after the fact and right before iowa is offering more than a little cause for suspicion o' the motives behind those leaking. for the press to not be more critical o' the warren campaign on this issue is unfair. weren't the debate where such reporting should take place, but to question bernie's motives w/o also following up on warren's is indeed wrong and unprofessional. you had so many options from which to choose to highlight cnn fail. unfortunate, the one example you chose to pantomime appears to show your bias rather than cnn's. gonna quadruple down? is that a thing? if it makes you feel better, we will note we thought it were a bit gauche for cnn to mention their own reporting efforts in their query o' bernie regarding the gender issue. minor quibble, but we woulda' left that bit out o' the question if cnn were aiming to keep their hands clean o' the mess, a mess which needed to be addressed. HA! Good Fun! @Guard Dog am knowing breitbart and the washington examiner are having fun with the kyle jurek story, but as we have pointed out in the past, with multiple links, whatever criticisms you might have o' bernie, you cannot accuse him o' actual or tacit approval o' any group, red, blue or otherwise, which uses violence to promote their message. bernie has been consistent and vocal in criticizing violence even when it comes from those who would support him. yeah, trump offers tacit approval o' white supremacists while aoc pays for bail of antifa members, and the multitude o' politicians stay silent when their core followers is involved in violence, but bernie has always been consistent and vocal anti-violence.

you are the guy doubling down on wrong. is only one time where the mods asked warren to direct respond to a bernie response as in your example. once. sure, were not 'bout eating babies, but you are asking readers to pretend to be absolute idiots not to recognize the exchange you were referencing. were nothing unprofessional 'bout those specific cnn questions regarding the gender question. bernie coulda' responded any number o' ways, but he flat out denied, which btw, is an implied accusation o' warren being a liar. once bernie refutes warren claims: "I didn't say it." cnn purposeful avoided asking warren if bernie were being truthful and instead asked her how she felt when bernie made his observation. wanna complain that cnn did a terrible job o' covering the issue in the week up to the debate and we would have a different question altogether, but that isn't what you were talking 'bout. pretend everybody is stoopid. does the trump nonsense where you observe you didn't specific say "gender," as if doing so gets you a free pass. doesn't. claim bernie got a raw deal if you want. am not arguing such. point is you used one o' the few moments from the debate where cnn did nothing wrong to highlight bernie getting a bad deal, and we called you on it. triple down if you want. won't help. HA! Good Fun!