Pundit on POTUS says Trump will be on Stage

[daws101]

Not claiming anything just starting fact.
To say she was is chicken shit and false.

Interesting reply.

You deny "claiming" what I ask you about.

Then claim that if anyone states the opposite of what you are NOT claiming, that they are "chickenshit" and "false".


So you DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM that Kelly was NOT biased, because then you would have to defend that, and you can't.

BUT you do want ridicule and disagree with anyone who says she WAS biased.



Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

Hey asshole you need to learn the difference between stating a fact and making a claim .
A claim is an opinion.
Stating a fact is not .
Megan Kelly's "treatment of the Donald is well within the rights of journalism.
Btw your fall back statement is false and Doa

"rights of journalism"?

WTF is that bullshit?

She was supposed to be an MODERATOR.

Instead she took sides.

She failed in her professional duties.

That Fox wanted to put her in charge again was them taking sides and trying to rig the game against Trump.

He refused to bend over and be their bitch and told them to fuck off.

GOOD FOR HIM!

Your dishonest semantics games is of no interest to me. Save them for some one who cares.

Translation : I'm getting my ass handed to me.

You could have defended your claim that her previous behavior was indeed, within the "rights of journalism" and not a professional failure.

Instead you make a vague claim of winning this debate.

LIberals: All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

Nothing to defend .
Another thing you need to learn is the meaning of the word vague

Again the argument goes back to your inability to think in non literal terms.

 

[jknowgood]

If you cannot grasp that Kelly is being judged based on her biased and thus failed job as a "moderator" last time out, I do not know what I can say that would dumb it down for you.


Trump will not be on the stage.

Sorry you bet on a horse you can't trust.

Your words indicate that you do not understand the concept of linear time.


As I cannot believe that you are that dumb, I can only assume you are trolling.

Knock it off.

Sorry you don't trust your messiah

I trust him to not put up with Bullshit, and a debate with a biased moderator is bullshit.

And he is not my messiah. He is a politician who is pushing polices that I think will be the best for America.

YOur refusal to be honest about this says loads about your real view of the situation.

Next election pick a more truthful messiah.

Coming from an Obama fluffer, Obama cannot tell the truth. You make Gruber proud. Then you also support Hillary which is an even bigger liar than obama. You have no credibility. Lol, the other day Hillary said she has always been a supporter of gay marriage. The big problem is, people like yourself will believe her.

 

[daws101]

I posted dodge because that's what you did .
If what you missed has to be explained to you, you haven't got the chops to understand it anyway.
However it does elegantly prove my point about you taking everything literally. Damn.

If you were able to give this supposed "figurative" point that candycorn was trying to make, that would have demonstrated that I indeed missed something.

And I went straight into that, I specifically asked you to prove that there was a point that I missed.

That is the exact opposite of a "Dodge".

I also predicted that you would NOT give me the "figurative" point, because there was none.

I stated instead that you would spew bullshit.

Which you have done.

Liberals: all the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

It was unnecessary for me to prove anything as its obvious.

And you keep dodging.

LIberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Nothing to dodge,
Oh no not the zero self awareness ploy again!

And you still having provided that "figurative" point that I supposedly missed.

And asked you for.

And predicted that you would not provide.

Because there wasn't one.

And you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

You've predicted jack shit.
You missed it, own it.

 

[daws101]

Sorry you bet on a horse you can't trust.

Your words indicate that you do not understand the concept of linear time.


As I cannot believe that you are that dumb, I can only assume you are trolling.

Knock it off.

Sorry you don't trust your messiah

I trust him to not put up with Bullshit, and a debate with a biased moderator is bullshit.

And he is not my messiah. He is a politician who is pushing polices that I think will be the best for America.

YOur refusal to be honest about this says loads about your real view of the situation.

Next election pick a more truthful messiah.

Coming from an Obama fluffer, Obama cannot tell the truth. You make Gruber proud. Then you also support Hillary which is an even bigger liar than obama. You have no credibility. Lol, the other day Hillary said she has always been a supporter of gay marriage. The big problem is, people like yourself will believe her.

Yes dear! Now go play with your Trump action figures.

 

[Correll]

Interesting reply.

You deny "claiming" what I ask you about.

Then claim that if anyone states the opposite of what you are NOT claiming, that they are "chickenshit" and "false".


So you DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM that Kelly was NOT biased, because then you would have to defend that, and you can't.

BUT you do want ridicule and disagree with anyone who says she WAS biased.



Liberals. All the intellectual honesty of a crack whore.

Hey asshole you need to learn the difference between stating a fact and making a claim .
A claim is an opinion.
Stating a fact is not .
Megan Kelly's "treatment of the Donald is well within the rights of journalism.
Btw your fall back statement is false and Doa

"rights of journalism"?

WTF is that bullshit?

She was supposed to be an MODERATOR.

Instead she took sides.

She failed in her professional duties.

That Fox wanted to put her in charge again was them taking sides and trying to rig the game against Trump.

He refused to bend over and be their bitch and told them to fuck off.

GOOD FOR HIM!

Your dishonest semantics games is of no interest to me. Save them for some one who cares.

Translation : I'm getting my ass handed to me.

You could have defended your claim that her previous behavior was indeed, within the "rights of journalism" and not a professional failure.

Instead you make a vague claim of winning this debate.

LIberals: All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

Nothing to defend .
Another thing you need to learn is the meaning of the word vague

Again the argument goes back to your inability to think in non literal terms.

NOpe.

It has not been demonstrated that there was any "figurative" point to that stupid post I responded to.

You claim there was one, but refuse to say what it is.

And expect to be taken seriously.

LOL!

 

[Correll]

If you were able to give this supposed "figurative" point that candycorn was trying to make, that would have demonstrated that I indeed missed something.

And I went straight into that, I specifically asked you to prove that there was a point that I missed.

That is the exact opposite of a "Dodge".

I also predicted that you would NOT give me the "figurative" point, because there was none.

I stated instead that you would spew bullshit.

Which you have done.

Liberals: all the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

It was unnecessary for me to prove anything as its obvious.

And you keep dodging.

LIberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Nothing to dodge,
Oh no not the zero self awareness ploy again!

And you still having provided that "figurative" point that I supposedly missed.

And asked you for.

And predicted that you would not provide.

Because there wasn't one.

And you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

You've predicted jack shit.
You missed it, own it.

I predicted your behavior to a T.

 

[jknowgood]

Your words indicate that you do not understand the concept of linear time.


As I cannot believe that you are that dumb, I can only assume you are trolling.

Knock it off.

Sorry you don't trust your messiah

I trust him to not put up with Bullshit, and a debate with a biased moderator is bullshit.

And he is not my messiah. He is a politician who is pushing polices that I think will be the best for America.

YOur refusal to be honest about this says loads about your real view of the situation.

Next election pick a more truthful messiah.

Coming from an Obama fluffer, Obama cannot tell the truth. You make Gruber proud. Then you also support Hillary which is an even bigger liar than obama. You have no credibility. Lol, the other day Hillary said she has always been a supporter of gay marriage. The big problem is, people like yourself will believe her.

Yes dear! Now go play with your Trump action figures.

Actually my guy is Carson, now go jerk off to your Obama poster.

 

[daws101]

Hey asshole you need to learn the difference between stating a fact and making a claim .
A claim is an opinion.
Stating a fact is not .
Megan Kelly's "treatment of the Donald is well within the rights of journalism.
Btw your fall back statement is false and Doa

"rights of journalism"?

WTF is that bullshit?

She was supposed to be an MODERATOR.

Instead she took sides.

She failed in her professional duties.

That Fox wanted to put her in charge again was them taking sides and trying to rig the game against Trump.

He refused to bend over and be their bitch and told them to fuck off.

GOOD FOR HIM!

Your dishonest semantics games is of no interest to me. Save them for some one who cares.

Translation : I'm getting my ass handed to me.

You could have defended your claim that her previous behavior was indeed, within the "rights of journalism" and not a professional failure.

Instead you make a vague claim of winning this debate.

LIberals: All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

Nothing to defend .
Another thing you need to learn is the meaning of the word vague

Again the argument goes back to your inability to think in non literal terms.

NOpe.

It has not been demonstrated that there was any "figurative" point to that stupid post I responded to.

You claim there was one, but refuse to say what it is.

And expect to be taken seriously.

LOL!

Really prove your claim show me what's been demonstrated!

 

[daws101]

It was unnecessary for me to prove anything as its obvious.

And you keep dodging.

LIberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

Nothing to dodge,
Oh no not the zero self awareness ploy again!

And you still having provided that "figurative" point that I supposedly missed.

And asked you for.

And predicted that you would not provide.

Because there wasn't one.

And you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

You've predicted jack shit.
You missed it, own it.

I predicted your behavior to a T.

Right lol.

 

[Correll]

"rights of journalism"?

WTF is that bullshit?

She was supposed to be an MODERATOR.

Instead she took sides.

She failed in her professional duties.

That Fox wanted to put her in charge again was them taking sides and trying to rig the game against Trump.

He refused to bend over and be their bitch and told them to fuck off.

GOOD FOR HIM!

Your dishonest semantics games is of no interest to me. Save them for some one who cares.

Translation : I'm getting my ass handed to me.

You could have defended your claim that her previous behavior was indeed, within the "rights of journalism" and not a professional failure.

Instead you make a vague claim of winning this debate.

LIberals: All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

Nothing to defend .
Another thing you need to learn is the meaning of the word vague

Again the argument goes back to your inability to think in non literal terms.

NOpe.

It has not been demonstrated that there was any "figurative" point to that stupid post I responded to.

You claim there was one, but refuse to say what it is.

And expect to be taken seriously.

LOL!

Really prove your claim show me what's been demonstrated!

I asked you to back up your claim, and predicted that you would not, and would do nothing but spew bullshit.

And that is exactly what you have done.

All you had to do to prove me wrong, twice over, was to post the "figurative" point you claimed I missed.

But you never did.

 

[daws101]

Sorry you don't trust your messiah

I trust him to not put up with Bullshit, and a debate with a biased moderator is bullshit.

And he is not my messiah. He is a politician who is pushing polices that I think will be the best for America.

YOur refusal to be honest about this says loads about your real view of the situation.

Next election pick a more truthful messiah.

Coming from an Obama fluffer, Obama cannot tell the truth. You make Gruber proud. Then you also support Hillary which is an even bigger liar than obama. You have no credibility. Lol, the other day Hillary said she has always been a supporter of gay marriage. The big problem is, people like yourself will believe her.

Yes dear! Now go play with your Trump action figures.

Actually my guy is Carson, now go jerk off to your Obama poster.

Backing losers must be a thing with you.

 

[daws101]

Translation : I'm getting my ass handed to me.

You could have defended your claim that her previous behavior was indeed, within the "rights of journalism" and not a professional failure.

Instead you make a vague claim of winning this debate.

LIberals: All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

Nothing to defend .
Another thing you need to learn is the meaning of the word vague

Again the argument goes back to your inability to think in non literal terms.

NOpe.

It has not been demonstrated that there was any "figurative" point to that stupid post I responded to.

You claim there was one, but refuse to say what it is.

And expect to be taken seriously.

LOL!

Really prove your claim show me what's been demonstrated!

I asked you to back up your claim, and predicted that you would not, and would do nothing but spew bullshit.

And that is exactly what you have done.

All you had to do to prove me wrong, twice over, was to post the "figurative" point you claimed I missed.

But you never did.

Didn't need to prove anything. your theory is based on a shit load of false assumptions and the false crisis fallicy.
So you were wrong from the outset and you want me to confirm it for you.
Own it!
No need to respond .

 

[jknowgood]

I trust him to not put up with Bullshit, and a debate with a biased moderator is bullshit.

And he is not my messiah. He is a politician who is pushing polices that I think will be the best for America.

YOur refusal to be honest about this says loads about your real view of the situation.

Next election pick a more truthful messiah.

Coming from an Obama fluffer, Obama cannot tell the truth. You make Gruber proud. Then you also support Hillary which is an even bigger liar than obama. You have no credibility. Lol, the other day Hillary said she has always been a supporter of gay marriage. The big problem is, people like yourself will believe her.

Yes dear! Now go play with your Trump action figures.

Actually my guy is Carson, now go jerk off to your Obama poster.

Backing losers must be a thing with you.

Nope just the best man, but if Trump wins the nomination I will vote for him. Anyone but hillary.

 

[Correll]

You could have defended your claim that her previous behavior was indeed, within the "rights of journalism" and not a professional failure.

Instead you make a vague claim of winning this debate.

LIberals: All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

Nothing to defend .
Another thing you need to learn is the meaning of the word vague

Again the argument goes back to your inability to think in non literal terms.

NOpe.

It has not been demonstrated that there was any "figurative" point to that stupid post I responded to.

You claim there was one, but refuse to say what it is.

And expect to be taken seriously.

LOL!

Really prove your claim show me what's been demonstrated!

I asked you to back up your claim, and predicted that you would not, and would do nothing but spew bullshit.

And that is exactly what you have done.

All you had to do to prove me wrong, twice over, was to post the "figurative" point you claimed I missed.

But you never did.

Didn't need to prove anything. your theory is based on a shit load of false assumptions and the false crisis fallicy.
So you were wrong from the outset and you want me to confirm it for you.
Own it!
No need to respond .

You say they are false, but you have not demonstrated they are false.

I certainly was correct when I said you would NOT tell me that supposed "figurative" point I supposedly "missed".

You talk a lot of smack about me missing that point. But you won't say what that point was.

 

[Correll]

Next election pick a more truthful messiah.

Coming from an Obama fluffer, Obama cannot tell the truth. You make Gruber proud. Then you also support Hillary which is an even bigger liar than obama. You have no credibility. Lol, the other day Hillary said she has always been a supporter of gay marriage. The big problem is, people like yourself will believe her.

Yes dear! Now go play with your Trump action figures.

Actually my guy is Carson, now go jerk off to your Obama poster.

Backing losers must be a thing with you.

Nope just the best man, but if Trump wins the nomination I will vote for him. Anyone but hillary.

If Carson wins the nomination, I would be happy to vote FOR him. It wouldn't even be voting AGAINST hILLARY.

 

[daws101]

Nothing to defend .
Another thing you need to learn is the meaning of the word vague

Again the argument goes back to your inability to think in non literal terms.

NOpe.

It has not been demonstrated that there was any "figurative" point to that stupid post I responded to.

You claim there was one, but refuse to say what it is.

And expect to be taken seriously.

LOL!

Really prove your claim show me what's been demonstrated!

I asked you to back up your claim, and predicted that you would not, and would do nothing but spew bullshit.

And that is exactly what you have done.

All you had to do to prove me wrong, twice over, was to post the "figurative" point you claimed I missed.

But you never did.

Didn't need to prove anything. your theory is based on a shit load of false assumptions and the false crisis fallicy.
So you were wrong from the outset and you want me to confirm it for you.
Own it!
No need to respond .

You say they are false, but you have not demonstrated they are false.

I certainly was correct when I said you would NOT tell me that supposed "figurative" point I supposedly "missed".

You talk a lot of smack about me missing that point. But you won't say what that point was.

I need demonstrate nothing .
You haven't been correct at any point in this exchange.
Your certainty is a major reason why.
Its'on you to prove your allegations and you've failed.

 

[daws101]

Next election pick a more truthful messiah.

Coming from an Obama fluffer, Obama cannot tell the truth. You make Gruber proud. Then you also support Hillary which is an even bigger liar than obama. You have no credibility. Lol, the other day Hillary said she has always been a supporter of gay marriage. The big problem is, people like yourself will believe her.

Yes dear! Now go play with your Trump action figures.

Actually my guy is Carson, now go jerk off to your Obama poster.

Backing losers must be a thing with you.

Nope just the best man, but if Trump wins the nomination I will vote for him. Anyone but hillary.

Uh huh!

 

[Correll]

NOpe.

It has not been demonstrated that there was any "figurative" point to that stupid post I responded to.

You claim there was one, but refuse to say what it is.

And expect to be taken seriously.

LOL!

Really prove your claim show me what's been demonstrated!

I asked you to back up your claim, and predicted that you would not, and would do nothing but spew bullshit.

And that is exactly what you have done.

All you had to do to prove me wrong, twice over, was to post the "figurative" point you claimed I missed.

But you never did.

Didn't need to prove anything. your theory is based on a shit load of false assumptions and the false crisis fallicy.
So you were wrong from the outset and you want me to confirm it for you.
Own it!
No need to respond .

You say they are false, but you have not demonstrated they are false.

I certainly was correct when I said you would NOT tell me that supposed "figurative" point I supposedly "missed".

You talk a lot of smack about me missing that point. But you won't say what that point was.

I need demonstrate nothing .
You haven't been correct at any point in this exchange.
Your certainty is a major reason why.
Its'on you to prove your allegations and you've failed.

You are the one making the allegation, ie that I missed some "FIGURATIVE" point.

You won't say what it was. Of course.

That would actually move the discussion forward.

Better just to play stupid lib games.

 

[daws101]

Really prove your claim show me what's been demonstrated!

I asked you to back up your claim, and predicted that you would not, and would do nothing but spew bullshit.

And that is exactly what you have done.

All you had to do to prove me wrong, twice over, was to post the "figurative" point you claimed I missed.

But you never did.

Didn't need to prove anything. your theory is based on a shit load of false assumptions and the false crisis fallicy.
So you were wrong from the outset and you want me to confirm it for you.
Own it!
No need to respond .

You say they are false, but you have not demonstrated they are false.

I certainly was correct when I said you would NOT tell me that supposed "figurative" point I supposedly "missed".

You talk a lot of smack about me missing that point. But you won't say what that point was.

I need demonstrate nothing .
You haven't been correct at any point in this exchange.
Your certainty is a major reason why.
Its'on you to prove your allegations and you've failed.

You are the one making the allegation, ie that I missed some "FIGURATIVE" point.

You won't say what it was. Of course.

That would actually move the discussion forward.

Better just to play stupid lib games.

False ! I just pointed up a flaw in your "logic".

 

[Correll]

I asked you to back up your claim, and predicted that you would not, and would do nothing but spew bullshit.

And that is exactly what you have done.

All you had to do to prove me wrong, twice over, was to post the "figurative" point you claimed I missed.

But you never did.

Didn't need to prove anything. your theory is based on a shit load of false assumptions and the false crisis fallicy.
So you were wrong from the outset and you want me to confirm it for you.
Own it!
No need to respond .

You say they are false, but you have not demonstrated they are false.

I certainly was correct when I said you would NOT tell me that supposed "figurative" point I supposedly "missed".

You talk a lot of smack about me missing that point. But you won't say what that point was.

I need demonstrate nothing .
You haven't been correct at any point in this exchange.
Your certainty is a major reason why.
Its'on you to prove your allegations and you've failed.

You are the one making the allegation, ie that I missed some "FIGURATIVE" point.

You won't say what it was. Of course.

That would actually move the discussion forward.

Better just to play stupid lib games.

False ! I just pointed up a flaw in your "logic".

Yes. You attacked me for thinking too "literally".

So I asked you what the "figurative" point was that I supposedly missed.

And you have done nothing but spew bullshit since then.

Exactly as i predicted.