Donald Trump

[Not GOP]

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-six-figure-speaking-fees-that-hillary-clinton-received-after-leaving-the-state-dept-2015-5

All that money went to Hillary. She's a rich bitch, I already know. But you clearly posted "for them" in regards to the people she was speaking to. What did they get?

that must be why she earns hundreds of thousands of dollars for them

 

[UncleBuck]

All that money went to Hillary. She's a rich bitch, I already know. But you clearly posted "for them" in regards to the people she was speaking to. What did they get?

are you fucking illiterate?

"them" refers to the speeches she gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make, munchbox.

why do you keep editing out where i correctly identify you as munchbox?

 

[Not GOP]

are you fucking illiterate?

"them" refers to the speeches she gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make, munchbox.

why do you keep editing out where i correctly identify you as munchbox?

I'm not munch box. And I quoted you accurately. Stop trying to turn back the page. Nobody wants to hear Hillary speak. Her events are empty in comparison to Trump. What is so hard to understand about that? Are you defending a white person for being rich, or are are you citing it as a reason for their success? Seriously! Because you are all over the map on this one.

 

[Not GOP]

The bigger point remains valid

so you think until I read every liberal rag in America, only then can I have a clear, unbiased view of the media?

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm not munch box.

yes you are, you even corrected my misspelling of the name!

And I quoted you accurately. Stop trying to turn back the page

i didn't say you misquoted me, i said you were illiterate, moron!

 

[Not GOP]

yes you are, you even corrected my misspelling of the name!



i didn't say you misquoted me, i said you were illiterate, moron!

Did I correct your misspelling, or am I illeterate? You contradicted yourself in the same post

 

[Padawanbater2]

so you think until I read every liberal rag in America, only then can I have a clear, unbiased view of the media?

No, the bigger point was that conservatives dismiss anything that doesn't confirm their bias as "lamestream liberal media", even if it's objectively verifiable, like anthropogenic climate change, or even if multiple bipartisan investigations find no wrongdoing in the pseudoscandals the GOP dig's up, like Benghazi and Climategate

 

[Not GOP]

No, the bigger point was that conservatives dismiss anything that doesn't confirm their bias as "lamestream liberal media", even if it's objectively verifiable, like anthropogenic climate change, or even if multiple bipartisan investigations find no wrongdoing in the pseudoscandals the GOP dig's up, like Benghazi and Climategate

thinkprogess.org is not "objectively verifiable" IMO. Does that answer you question?

 

[Padawanbater2]

thinkprogess.org is not "objectively verifiable" IMO. Does that answer you question?

Anthropogenic climate change is. Do you accept ACC as objectively verifiable and caused by humans?

 

[Not GOP]

Anthropogenic climate change is. Do you accept ACC as objectively verifiable and caused by humans?

let's stay on topic. How often do you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for your daily dose of unbiased view?
Not at all right? Unless you find them "objectively verifiable". do you?

 

[schuylaar]

I'm not munch box. And I quoted you accurately. Stop trying to turn back the page. Nobody wants to hear Hillary speak. Her events are empty in comparison to Trump. What is so hard to understand about that? Are you defending a white person for being rich, or are are you citing it as a reason for their success? Seriously! Because you are all over the map on this one.

And Bernie Sanders speeches are overflow..

 

[Not GOP]

And Bernie Sanders speeches are overflow..

Because he has ten times the energy that Hillary's cackle could ever muster up

 

[Padawanbater2]

let's stay on topic. How often do you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for your daily dose of unbiased view?
Not at all right? Unless you find them "objectively verifiable". do you?

If Rush Limbaugh or Fox News produced objectively verifiable news, like anthropogenic climate change, I wouldn't deny the science because I don't like what it's saying

Like you do if some organization like Thinkprogress does

Forget Thinkprogress, let's go directly to NASA, NOAA and the IPCC - all scientifically, objectively verify that humans are causing the climate to change, unequivocally. No doubt about it.

Do you accept that as fact? Or are you going to sit here and tell me that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC are all "lamestream liberal media"?

 

[schuylaar]

Because he has ten times the energy that Hillary's cackle could ever muster up

He makes sense..everyone knows what Hillary represents..I just corrected someone else today when they said they'd vote for him but is he electable? Told that person to just repeat the first part of their sentence..they said the same of Obama..is he electable?

Short answer: by a landslide.

 

[Not GOP]

If Rush Limbaugh or Fox News produced objectively verifiable news, like anthropogenic climate change, I wouldn't deny the science because I don't like what it's saying

Like you do if some organization like Thinkprogress does

Forget Thinkprogress, let's go directly to NASA, NOAA and the IPCC - all scientifically, objectively verify that humans are causing the climate to change, unequivocally. No doubt about it.

Do you accept that as fact? Or are you going to sit here and tell me that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC are all "lamestream liberal media"?

But you do deny it.

NASA is not at all what it was before Obama became president. over the years, they have become an extension of the EPA. Most of what the liberals do there, is study satellite images and then call it "climate change", because it is what Obama considers to be the "greatest threat" to mankind. Why do I feeling you're trying to trap me into some sort of "global warming" discussion?

 

[Padawanbater2]

But you do deny it.

NASA is not at all what it was before Obama became president. over the years, they have become an extension of the EPA. Most of what the liberals do there, is study satellite images and then call it "climate change", because it is what Obama considers to be the "greatest threat" to mankind. Why do I feeling you're trying to trap me into some sort of "global warming" discussion?

lmfao

Thank you for proving my point

Objectively verifiable science is "lamestream liberal media" because you don't like what it says

OK, bud

 

[Not GOP]

He makes sense..everyone knows what Hillary represents..I just corrected someone else today when they said they'd vote for him but is he electable? Told that person to just repeat the first part of their sentence..they said the same of Obama..is he electable?

Short answer: by a landslide.

time will tell, but the Clinton machine can be a powerful force. Hopefully he can continue to convince them that he's not a threat, and stay off their radar. He's done a good job of it so far in the debate. Burn and Shrillary seem to be getting along very well.

 

[Not GOP]

lmfao

Thank you for proving my point

Objectively verifiable science is "lamestream liberal media" because you don't like what it says

OK, bud

NASA is controlled by the Obama Administration, not the media

 

[Padawanbater2]

NASA is controlled by the Obama Administration, not the media

How did the Obama administration control NASA when they were publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers before the Reagan administration?

 

[Not GOP]

How did the Obama administration control NASA when they were publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers before the Reagan administration?

During the Reagan administration liberal scientists were still stuck on their peer-reviewed "scientific evidence" from the 1970's. Claiming global cooling was inevitable, and our entire planet was doomed for another ice age. Which according to their calculations, should have been here by now. So where is it?