As I see it, I did not ignore everything GP said. I read all of their original statements, over half of the evidence, and their 2 additional comments. I admitted that I did not have 30 minutes to watch the videos at first. I explained why my reading of the rest of their comments made me less inclined to spend 30 minutes watching videos. GP seemed confused about HN's reaction, so I attempted to explain my thought process.
Which part of my comment is in bad faith? If I did not disregard all of GP, why should all of my comment be disregarded?
P.S. I did end up watching most of the videos when I had time. I'm still not totally convinced, and since they are entirely about D's, it doesn't help GP seem less partisan.
There's a lot of editing, and I tend to be skeptical of what was edited out (like when ACORN was 'exposed'). Were these people led in a certain direction? Are some of the comments made by someone other than who they're attributed to? A lot of the time you can't see the person speaking.
But, a lot of the commentary in the videos is quite troubling, infuriating even. Given that there appears to be admission of crimes across multiple jurisdictions, why has there not been further prosecution? Especially since some of the allegations occur in majority R states, I'd think they'd jump at the chance to prove D's are cheats.
Both parties are cheats. I think GP agrees, it just didn't come across that way at first.
As I see it, I did not ignore everything GP said. I read all of their original statements, over half of the evidence, and their 2 additional comments. I admitted that I did not have 30 minutes to watch the videos at first. I explained why my reading of the rest of their comments made me less inclined to spend 30 minutes watching videos. GP seemed confused about HN's reaction, so I attempted to explain my thought process.
Which part of my comment is in bad faith? If I did not disregard all of GP, why should all of my comment be disregarded?
P.S. I did end up watching most of the videos when I had time. I'm still not totally convinced, and since they are entirely about D's, it doesn't help GP seem less partisan.
There's a lot of editing, and I tend to be skeptical of what was edited out (like when ACORN was 'exposed'). Were these people led in a certain direction? Are some of the comments made by someone other than who they're attributed to? A lot of the time you can't see the person speaking.
But, a lot of the commentary in the videos is quite troubling, infuriating even. Given that there appears to be admission of crimes across multiple jurisdictions, why has there not been further prosecution? Especially since some of the allegations occur in majority R states, I'd think they'd jump at the chance to prove D's are cheats.
Both parties are cheats. I think GP agrees, it just didn't come across that way at first.