I think that voices we don't agree with should be banned
Grow the hell up and learn the difference between bannoning stupid voices and mocking them.
So the effort to boycott and get him off the air is mocking ?
Got it. I want Maddow on the air. Her work on the Trump tax return was groundbreaking
It's not government action. This is the free market at work, fren.
I didn't mention the government
Then it's not banning.
Private people can ban.
If you mean, threaten to remove their financial support to companies that advertise on a TV personality that is peddling 3rd-rate conspiracy theories that the network on which said TV personality appears has retracted, well, that kinda sounds like sour grapes to me.
Why again? Fox retracted it story which means its claims of "proof" are BS and that reporter is/should be fired, but doesn't change much of what is know, which is:
1) Seth, a known Bernie supporter who had access to the info was gunned down in suspicious circumstances. A crazy hacker with a vendetta against the Dems claims Seth and he leaked the DNC emails (and claimed back in 2015 something like the leak would happen), which in and of itself wouldn't mean much but it is rather strange Assange pretty much backed up his claim.
3) It came out Obama was illegally monitoring Americans and Clapper constantly reviewed that information, and even that corrupt SOB had to say he's seen absolutely zero evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia.
(and 4) this board is currently unreadable with it constantly jumping up to the top...no clue how most of you can stand reading this).
Carry on now...
Do you go to Joel Osteen's megachurch?
Only 10 year ago when it use to house the Rockets and concerts.
Since we are axing questions, you the Unipiper?
Is he someone who's right about fucktarded conspiracy theories? If so, then yes
Says the guy who posts daily about how some non-event is going to lead to WW3, immediate impeachment, or some other earth-shattering event?
Now I know what you keep falling for these pesky conspiracy theories.
YOU CAN'T READ!!!
Every instance of me saying "impeach" in those threds:
(1) "Republicans will never impeach." (2) "Grounds for impeachment are political (bullshit). They're whatever Congress says they are. Basically, Congress is supposed to act as a check on the executive when they fuck up badly. But, the Constitution sez 'treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.' A decent case can be made for at least two of those four, if not all four."
Every instance of me saying WW3 in those threds:
- 404 not found
So you accused him of all the reasons that are grounds for impeachment as defined by the Constitution but you didn't say impeach. And you said several things will lead to (nuclear) war with Korea but that's not WW3?
Why again? Fox retracted it story which means its claims of "proof" are BS and that reporter is/should be fired, but doesn't change much of what is know, which is:
1) Seth, a known Bernie supporter who had access to the info was gunned down in suspicious circumstances. A crazy hacker with a vendetta against the Dems claims Seth and he leaked the DNC emails (and claimed back in 2015 something like the leak would happen), which in and of itself wouldn't mean much but it is rather strange Assange pretty much backed up his claim.
3) It came out Obama was illegally monitoring Americans and Clapper constantly reviewed that information, and even that corrupt SOB had to say he's seen absolutely zero evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia.
(and 4) this board is currently unreadable with it constantly jumping up to the top...no clue how most of you can stand reading this).
Carry on now...
Do you go to Joel Osteen's megachurch?
Only 10 year ago when it use to house the Rockets and concerts.
Since we are axing questions, you the Unipiper?
Is he someone who's right about fucktarded conspiracy theories? If so, then yes
Says the guy who posts daily about how some non-event is going to lead to WW3, immediate impeachment, or some other earth-shattering event?
Now I know what you keep falling for these pesky conspiracy theories.
YOU CAN'T READ!!!
Every instance of me saying "impeach" in those threds:
(1) "Republicans will never impeach." (2) "Grounds for impeachment are political (bullshit). They're whatever Congress says they are. Basically, Congress is supposed to act as a check on the executive when they fuck up badly. But, the Constitution sez 'treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.' A decent case can be made for at least two of those four, if not all four."
Every instance of me saying WW3 in those threds:
- 404 not found
So you accused him of all the reasons that are grounds for impeachment as defined by the Constitution but you didn't say impeach. And you said several things will lead to (nuclear) war with Korea but that's not WW3?
I think that voices we don't agree with should be banned
Grow the hell up and learn the difference between bannoning stupid voices and mocking them.
So the effort to boycott and get him off the air is mocking ?
Got it. I want Maddow on the air. Her work on the Trump tax return was groundbreaking
It's not government action. This is the free market at work, fren.
I didn't mention the government
Then it's not banning.
Private people can ban.
If you mean, threaten to remove their financial support to companies that advertise on a TV personality that is peddling 3rd-rate conspiracy theories that the network on which said TV personality appears has retracted, well, that kinda sounds like sour grapes to me.
Sounds like you want to ban voices you don't agree with, Kim
I think that voices we don't agree with should be banned
Grow the hell up and learn the difference between bannoning stupid voices and mocking them.
So the effort to boycott and get him off the air is mocking ?
Got it. I want Maddow on the air. Her work on the Trump tax return was groundbreaking
It's not government action. This is the free market at work, fren.
I didn't mention the government
Then it's not banning.
Private people can ban.
If you mean, threaten to remove their financial support to companies that advertise on a TV personality that is peddling 3rd-rate conspiracy theories that the network on which said TV personality appears has retracted, well, that kinda sounds like sour grapes to me.
Sounds like you want to ban voices you don't agree with, Kim
Says the guy cheering on a politician that stifles voices with a body slam.
I think that voices we don't agree with should be banned
Grow the hell up and learn the difference between bannoning stupid voices and mocking them.
So the effort to boycott and get him off the air is mocking ?
Got it. I want Maddow on the air. Her work on the Trump tax return was groundbreaking
It's not government action. This is the free market at work, fren.
I didn't mention the government
Then it's not banning.
Private people can ban.
If you mean, threaten to remove their financial support to companies that advertise on a TV personality that is peddling 3rd-rate conspiracy theories that the network on which said TV personality appears has retracted, well, that kinda sounds like sour grapes to me.
Sounds like you want to ban voices you don't agree with, Kim
I'm sure Sean can get his message out - he's made enough money over the years, and he has name recognition, and lemming-like followers (apparently) who support him even when he is overwhelmingly wrong... so I'm not too worried about him.
I can't help it if one group's boycott agitation is successful where another one fails. It's the free market, baby, whattaryougonnado? I mean, I suppose FOX can stand by their man, come what may.
Why again? Fox retracted it story which means its claims of "proof" are BS and that reporter is/should be fired, but doesn't change much of what is know, which is:
1) Seth, a known Bernie supporter who had access to the info was gunned down in suspicious circumstances. A crazy hacker with a vendetta against the Dems claims Seth and he leaked the DNC emails (and claimed back in 2015 something like the leak would happen), which in and of itself wouldn't mean much but it is rather strange Assange pretty much backed up his claim.
3) It came out Obama was illegally monitoring Americans and Clapper constantly reviewed that information, and even that corrupt SOB had to say he's seen absolutely zero evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia.
(and 4) this board is currently unreadable with it constantly jumping up to the top...no clue how most of you can stand reading this).
Carry on now...
Do you go to Joel Osteen's megachurch?
Only 10 year ago when it use to house the Rockets and concerts.
Since we are axing questions, you the Unipiper?
Is he someone who's right about fucktarded conspiracy theories? If so, then yes
Says the guy who posts daily about how some non-event is going to lead to WW3, immediate impeachment, or some other earth-shattering event?
Now I know what you keep falling for these pesky conspiracy theories.
YOU CAN'T READ!!!
Every instance of me saying "impeach" in those threds:
(1) "Republicans will never impeach." (2) "Grounds for impeachment are political (bullshit). They're whatever Congress says they are. Basically, Congress is supposed to act as a check on the executive when they fuck up badly. But, the Constitution sez 'treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.' A decent case can be made for at least two of those four, if not all four."
Every instance of me saying WW3 in those threds:
- 404 not found
So you accused him of all the reasons that are grounds for impeachment as defined by the Constitution but you didn't say impeach. And you said several things will lead to (nuclear) war with Korea but that's not WW3?
Why again? Fox retracted it story which means its claims of "proof" are BS and that reporter is/should be fired, but doesn't change much of what is know, which is:
1) Seth, a known Bernie supporter who had access to the info was gunned down in suspicious circumstances. A crazy hacker with a vendetta against the Dems claims Seth and he leaked the DNC emails (and claimed back in 2015 something like the leak would happen), which in and of itself wouldn't mean much but it is rather strange Assange pretty much backed up his claim.
3) It came out Obama was illegally monitoring Americans and Clapper constantly reviewed that information, and even that corrupt SOB had to say he's seen absolutely zero evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia.
(and 4) this board is currently unreadable with it constantly jumping up to the top...no clue how most of you can stand reading this).
Carry on now...
Do you go to Joel Osteen's megachurch?
Only 10 year ago when it use to house the Rockets and concerts.
Since we are axing questions, you the Unipiper?
Is he someone who's right about fucktarded conspiracy theories? If so, then yes
Says the guy who posts daily about how some non-event is going to lead to WW3, immediate impeachment, or some other earth-shattering event?
Now I know what you keep falling for these pesky conspiracy theories.
YOU CAN'T READ!!!
Every instance of me saying "impeach" in those threds:
(1) "Republicans will never impeach." (2) "Grounds for impeachment are political (bullshit). They're whatever Congress says they are. Basically, Congress is supposed to act as a check on the executive when they fuck up badly. But, the Constitution sez 'treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.' A decent case can be made for at least two of those four, if not all four."
Every instance of me saying WW3 in those threds:
- 404 not found
So you accused him of all the reasons that are grounds for impeachment as defined by the Constitution but you didn't say impeach. And you said several things will lead to (nuclear) war with Korea but that's not WW3?
I think that voices we don't agree with should be banned
Grow the hell up and learn the difference between bannoning stupid voices and mocking them.
So the effort to boycott and get him off the air is mocking ?
Got it. I want Maddow on the air. Her work on the Trump tax return was groundbreaking
It's not government action. This is the free market at work, fren.
I didn't mention the government
Then it's not banning.
Private people can ban.
If you mean, threaten to remove their financial support to companies that advertise on a TV personality that is peddling 3rd-rate conspiracy theories that the network on which said TV personality appears has retracted, well, that kinda sounds like sour grapes to me.
Sounds like you want to ban voices you don't agree with, Kim
Says the guy cheering on a politician that stifles voices with a body slam.
Actually I called the reporter a pussy but let's not quibble.
Pretty sure if Hannity got body slammed the reaction would be different here
Comments
Got it. I want Maddow on the air. Her work on the Trump tax return was groundbreaking
Now you are heading into HondoFS territory...
I can't help it if one group's boycott agitation is successful where another one fails. It's the free market, baby, whattaryougonnado? I mean, I suppose FOX can stand by their man, come what may.
https://www.facebook.com/boycottrachelmaddow/
Never mind, I know the answer
Pretty sure if Hannity got body slammed the reaction would be different here