Could Hillary Really Be President, If She's an Alcoholic ?

[LoneLaugher]

protectionist

I'm still waiting for your answer re: instances where you have used the Globe as aprimary source for a thread or post. Have you ever used them before? Or......is this thread a case of you hopping on a bullshit story that you like.....and then defending the shit source for several hours.....in an attempt to save face?

Come on, man. You are an elderly gentleman. How about some integrity?

No you don't to wait for any answers to any questions until YOU ANSWER MINE. And don't tell me you don';t know what they are. I've asked them about 20 times in this thread. But I'll really laugh if you say the New York Times.

That's right, little, scared, pathetic, speechless Globe detractors.

I'm BA-A-A -A -A-A -A -ACKKK !!!

Your questions have been answered.

 

[protectionist]

Nope, I answered them, repeatedly.

You only answered what media you believe in, and even that you hedged by saying "not automatically". Well then, you don't believe in them. And even if you did, I showed what a farce your # 1 pick, the New York Times has been shown to be for 37 years now, and right up until last month.

 

[protectionist]

LOL, good point Mac, if we're going to have buffoons running the country they might as well be buffoons hopped up on booze and crack.

In Hillary's case it might make actually make here better. She couldn't be any worse than when she's sober. Although if Huma takes over, Oh God, we'll be sold out to the Muslim Brotherhood, just like it was when Hillary was Sect of State and Huma was Deputy Chief of Staff. More of all those BADDDD things.

 

[protectionist]

The Globe is diminished, that's the point. You're just reporting shit you want to believe is right.

San Bernardino? Is that your kitchen sink? I'm still waiting from you to tell me who the Globe's sources are, you haven't answered that and questions from others while you insist on answers you were already given. How pathetic are you for starting this thread?

1. YOU haven't diminished the Globe one iota in this thread, and neither has anyone else. If you think you have something that might diminish them, let's hear it.

2. Oh you want to know who the Globe's sources are do you ?

Oh well thanks for reminding me. I almost forgot to hit you guys with that. OK here's the next sledgehammer on your heads >>

When you try to diminaish the Globe, for its veracity, credibility, prestige, etc. you are very offensively attempting to do that to all of the sources published in the Globe, such as all THESE in the current issue of the Globe (January 11, 2016 issue). You should contact all these people and tell them you don't regrd them as reputable sources.

1. Researcher, Dr. Richard Lipton at Montefiore Health Systems (the University Hospital for Albert Einstein College of Medicine.) - Pg. 45

2. Alzheimer study (at MHS - AECM) author, Dr. Mindy Katz. - pg 45.

3. The Journal of Medicinal Food - pg 44

4. Dermatologist Dr Rebbeca Baxt - pg 44.

5. Dermatologist Dr. Kenneth Beer - pg 44.

6. The American Institute for Cancer Research - pg 44.

7. TV show "The Bachelor" host Chris Harrison. -pg 4

8. Actor Carrie Fisher and her brother Todd Fisher.-pg 5/26.

9. Rolling Stone Magazine - pg 5

10. Donald Trump - pg.11

11. Asst US Attorney Laura Mantell - pg.14.

12. Former US Customs agent John A. Carman -pg 20

13. Retired Admiral James A. Lyons Jr.- p 21.

14. Natl columnist Debbie Schussel - pg 21

15. Author Ingrid Seward - pg 22

16. Author John Morgan - pg 22.

17. Diane Sawyer (20/20 TV show host) - pg 24.

18. Author Darwin Porter - pg 25

19. Author Danforth Prince - pg 25.

20. Actor Joel Grey - pg 27

21. Judge George O'Toole (in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev case) - pg 28.

22. Ex GOP Congressman John LeBoutillier - pg 34.

23. LAPD Elder Abuse Unit - pg 40.

24. New York internist Dr. Stuart Fischer - pg 40.

25. US Marine Lance corporal David Pond - pg 55

 

[protectionist]

SO!!!! The question now is what do we do to keep the alcoholic Hillary Clinton from getting into the White House. Not only would it be a huge smear on the USA, and an embarrassment, but it would give Huma Abedin the freedom to act as the president of the United States, and we all saw what happened when lush Hillary headed the State Dept. got zonked out, and Huma took over. What, you say ? Lots of pro-Muslim Brotherhood things, THAT'S what.

 

[protectionist]

Your questions have been answered.

By YOU ? Where ? Post # please.

 

[protectionist]

Well, we have to stop Hillary. Otherwise, we'll have a pro-Muslim Brotherhood White House, just like we have now, and just like we had that pro-Muslim Brotherhood State Dept, when Hillary and Huma were in there. Back then, just a few years ago, you will remember the many pro-Muslim jihad, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood things that came out of the State Dept then. We need to put a stop to all this stuff.

STOP IT!!!

 

[HappyJoy]

Wow,dude. You've lost your shit over the Globe.

What are the Globe sources for this story? You're rambling off a bunch of pages I have no idea what the articles are and there is no fucking way I'm wasting money to go but the rag.

 

[protectionist]

Wow,dude. You've lost your shit over the Globe.

What are the Globe sources for this story? You're rambling off a bunch of pages I have no idea what the articles are and there is no fucking way I'm wasting money to go but the rag.

You asked for Globe sources. I gave you them (with some work involved). Now you're complaining ?

PS - You wouldn't buy the Globe, but you're wasting money on the proven-to-be "diminished" New York Times ?

 

[HappyJoy]

Not what I said. I gave you a list of source I go to but I don't automatically believe them unless there are some facts presented. So, for example if a story came out from the NY Times that George Bush is a crack whore, I'm not obliged to automatically believe them, they do get things wrong on occasion but they also have a fairly decent reputation. If they report on something questionable then I'm naturally going to want to see if any other news source corroborates what they are saying.

The Globe has nothing. It's that simple, there is nothing to trust about them, you've been given many, many stories that are tabloid in nature that turned out not to be true.

And, other than you I haven't seen anyone directly defend the Globe.

Don't me, asshole! This is just another one of your gutless coward dodges, where you give an answer, but "Oh wait a minute" you didn't really give that answer. You're a joke.

No, it is not "that simple" None of you here have shown a shred of evidence to back up your accusations, except to try to diminish the Globe as being a tabloid, which you don't even know that was a sword that was broken 37 years ago, in the classic Times /Enquirer "scandal" of sorts. Scandal for the Times, that is. And continues to be, as in the December 2015 San Bernardino
gaff of the Times.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...rection-margaret-sullivan-public-editor/?_r=0

Now I'm off the computer. Dinner/football time.

Just curious and coming back to this. Can you find a retraction that the Globe ever printed? Nobody is right 100% of the time which as explained to you earlier I don't take any one news source as the gospel truth.

Anyway, if the Globe were honest, I'm sure there should be a couple of retractions out there that they've had to make.

 

[HappyJoy]

Wow,dude. You've lost your shit over the Globe.

What are the Globe sources for this story? You're rambling off a bunch of pages I have no idea what the articles are and there is no fucking way I'm wasting money to go but the rag.

You asked for Globe sources. I gave you them (with some work involved). Now you're complaining ?

On the story we're talking about ding bat. Wouldn't that make sense? You know...you start a thread with a source that has a reputation for making shit up. I ask for the source ot your source and then go and list a dozen fucking sources to articles we haven't even seen? That takes a colossal amount of stupidity on your part.

Now, who are the sources for THIS article that you have posted? And why no direct link?

 

[Wildman]

...and drag us all into the water with her.

trust me.., it ain't gonna be water.

 

[Wildman]

Anyway, if the Globe were honest,

if they are wrong, sue'em!

 

[protectionist]

Just curious and coming back to this. Can you find a retraction that the Globe ever printed? Nobody is right 100% of the time which as explained to you earlier I don't take any one news source as the gospel truth.

Anyway, if the Globe were honest, I'm sure there should be a couple of retractions out there that they've had to make.

I don't see that as a barometer of honesty. If honesty is what you're looking for try the sources I listed in Post # 164, which you have offensively been disparaging all through this thread. Go ahead. Read them.

 

[HappyJoy]

Just curious and coming back to this. Can you find a retraction that the Globe ever printed? Nobody is right 100% of the time which as explained to you earlier I don't take any one news source as the gospel truth.

Anyway, if the Globe were honest, I'm sure there should be a couple of retractions out there that they've had to make.

I don't see that as a barometer of honesty. If honesty is what you're looking for try the sources I listed in Post # 164, which you have offensively been disparaging all through this thread. Go ahead. Read them.

Of course you don't see that as a barometer of honesty, god forbid you hold the Globe accountable for all the lies told by them in this thread alone.

Who are the sources for the Clinton story? No one? How about a direct link? Are any other news sources covering this? It would seem to be a big deal. Where is Fox News or Breitbart on this?

 

[HappyJoy]

Anyway, if the Globe were honest,

if they are wrong, sue'em!

I wouldn't have any standing in court, because I'm not the one they are lying about, you should know that.

But, to some research for you, suing tabloids is difficult.

How the Supermarket Tabloids Stay Out of Court

 

[bodecea]

I guess this is the latest slander.

 

[protectionist]

On the story we're talking about ding bat. Wouldn't that make sense? You know...you start a thread with a source that has a reputation for making shit up. I ask for the source ot your source and then go and list a dozen fucking sources to articles we haven't even seen? That takes a colossal amount of stupidity on your part.

Now, who are the sources for THIS article that you have posted? And why no direct link?

You just asked for sources (without any further description) You got Globe sources, all of whom you've been demeaning in this thread. As for Globe sources pertaining to this article, I addressed that repeatedly earlier in the thread. Now who's "not finding posts that answer his questions." ? Sound familiar ?

PS - this is Clean Debate Zone. Your word "ding bat" doesn't qualify.

 

[protectionist]

I guess this is the latest slander.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[HappyJoy]

On the story we're talking about ding bat. Wouldn't that make sense? You know...you start a thread with a source that has a reputation for making shit up. I ask for the source ot your source and then go and list a dozen fucking sources to articles we haven't even seen? That takes a colossal amount of stupidity on your part.

Now, who are the sources for THIS article that you have posted? And why no direct link?

You just asked for sources (without any further description) You got Globe sources, all of whom you've been demeaning in this thread. As for Globe sources pertaining to this article, I addressed that repeatedly earlier in the thread. Now who's "not finding posts that answer his questions." ? Sound familiar ?

PS - this is Clean Debate Zone. Your word "ding bat" doesn't qualify.

Which post has the sources for the article?