|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Who doesn't love Ann? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1570209621 Message started by WebsterMark on 10/04/19 at 10:20:21 |
|
Title: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by WebsterMark on 10/04/19 at 10:20:21 This column will explain the impeachment farce in two minutes. By the end, you will thank the media for demanding the release of Trump’s phone calls with the leaders of Ukraine and Australia. What the phone transcripts demonstrate is that -- unlike the typical Republican -- Trump is not a let-bygones-be-bygones sort. He intends to find out who turned the FBI into a Hillary super PAC, using the powers of the nation’s “premiere law enforcement agency” (according to them) to take out a presidential candidate, and then a president. The whole picture becomes clear when you have the timeline. Instead of the FBI just admitting that it launched the Russia probe to help elect Hillary, the agency has given us a scrolling series of excuses for this partisan attack. The FBI’s first claim was that it was merely investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email servers. As part of that effort, it was, naturally, obligated to spy on the Trump campaign. Then we found out that the John le Carre theory of Hillary’s defeat was based exclusively on the word of a single cybersecurity firm. Yes, the FBI was SO frantic about the DNC’s servers ... that it didn’t bother examining them itself. I repeat: The FBI never touched the DNC's servers. And who did? CrowdStrike. Who was CrowdStrike? A Ukrainian-backed cybersecurity firm. That’s why Trump asked the Ukrainian president about CrowdStrike –- the company behind the first of the FBI’s many excuses for spying on Trump. On Jan. 10, 2017 -- before Trump was even inaugurated -- FBI Director James Comey breathed new life into the Russian collusion story by leaking news about the infamous Russian “dossier.” Hurray! The media were ecstatic. For the next 10 months, we got breathless reports about how this very important, totally credible, deeply concerning dossier might force Trump out of the White House! E.g.: -- “I remember pretty distinctly that you supported President Trump’s criticism of this dossier ... Do you want to dial back that criticism now?” -- CNN’s Kate Bolduan to former Rep. Pete Hoekstra, April 19, 2017 -- “If the dossier is now about to be publicly defended and explained and backed up, I mean, that’s conceivably the whole ball game.” -- MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Aug. 23, 2017 After carrying on about the dossier for nearly all of 2017, on Oct. 24 of that year, we finally found out who had paid for it: the Hillary Clinton campaign. (And you wonder why they don’t want to give us the whistleblower’s name.) This rather important datum was coughed up not by the media, but only in response to a court order. Good work, “watchdog media”! Nothing gets past you guys. Suddenly the dossier wasn’t important at all. Where did Republicans get that idea? At this point, the FBI had to scramble to come up with an all-new explanation for why the bureau had put more than 100 agents -- according to NBC News’ Ken Dilanian –- on an investigation of a presidential candidate. (Luckily, the bureau had lots of time, having already vanquished international terrorism.) Within a matter of days, on Oct. 30, the media was bristling with the news that the real reason the FBI put G-Men on the Trump campaign was: George Papadopoulos. (Don’t stop reading! The sun is about come out and all will be clear.) Up until Oct. 24, the media had barely mentioned the young campaign aide. But starting on Oct. 30, Papadopoulos became the lynchpin of the whole Trump-Russia conspiracy. It was a heavy lift. Papadopoulos had only met Trump once and, as The New York Times admitted, was “so green that he listed Model United Nations in his qualifications.” A few months later, in December 2017, the Russian collusion fairy tale took a hit when texts from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page showed FBI operatives at the heart of the so-called “investigation” vowing to use federal law enforcement resources to “stop” Trump. The FBI began frantically pumping up the Papadopoulos angle, telling the Times that it was their gob-smacking discovery in the summer of 2016 that Papadopoulos may have had “inside information” about Russia “hacking” the DNC’s email that was a “driving factor” in the bureau’s opening of the Russia-Trump investigation. So THAT’S why the nation’s No. 1 law enforcement agency had 100 agents investigating the Trump campaign! It sure took them a long time to come up with a reason. Pending results from Trump’s phone call with the Australian prime minister, Papadopoulos remains the FBI’s current excuse for an “investigation” that wasted four years, millions of dollars and, in the end, turned up nada. The story was, in the summer of 2016, Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom Alexander Downer contacted the FBI claiming that Papadopoulos had admitted to him during a night of drinking that he knew the Russians had Hillary’s emails. Two months later, Wikileaks began posting the DNC's emails! HOW ELSE CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, UNLESS TRUMP WAS COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA? I can explain it. When Papadopoulos was blabbing to the Australian about the Russians having Hillary’s emails, everyone was talking about the Russians having Hillary’s emails -- CNN, The Guardian, even ABC’s “The View.” (See Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind.) Papadopoulos’ “source” probably read it in The New York Times. Perhaps Downer is always completely oblivious to international news. Perhaps he spends too much time drinking with 28-year-olds. Trump’s phone call with the prime minister of Australia, released this week, suggests that we just might get to the bottom of the big Alexander Downer tipoff -- the FBI’s latest cover story. Now you know why all of official Washington, D.C., is screaming: IMPEACH! They don’t want you to find out that America’s “premiere law enforcement agency” tried to throw a presidential election and destroy a presidency. COPYRIGHT 2019 ANN COULTER |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/04/19 at 10:51:32 I don't. But I do agree with her assessment of trump: "The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot," But as you read other things she's written, you see that she doesn't really mean it.... “[Trump] deserves to lose. We don’t deserve a Democrat though,” Coulter said before adding that she has “repeatedly” told Trump that he does not need Congress to build the wall. When asked what she is most satisfied with about the Trump presidency, Coulter said “the tweeting is great.” In fact, the more I've read from ann, the less credible she is. She, like trump is only out for one thing - herself. No integrity, no credibility, no accountability. All she does is squeak loudly. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by raydawg on 10/04/19 at 10:55:52 Web..... Can you imagine if Mueller would have released his report, in a timely manner, before the midterms...... Things would be vastly different right now. He knew that no collusion happened, and they turned the investigation on to other people, who were not even part of the original charge against Trump..... That too appears to have been part of the plan. When the republicans take over the house...IF, and I kinda feel they will, I think the same "rules" should be in play, and they go after all these folks with the same crap they are deploying..... Boy, will they scream...UNFAIR, yada, yada, yada...... |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by MnSpring on 10/04/19 at 11:13:15 495758595449524F3D0 wrote:
I just took a sip of coffee when I read that. Now I have to clean my keyboard and screen ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/04/19 at 11:17:03 4665587B7962656C0B0 wrote:
I just took a sip of coffee when I read that. Now I have to clean my keyboard and screen ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] Glad you agree. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by MnSpring on 10/04/19 at 11:30:11 140A050409140F12600 wrote:
A-Yep, Just knew that after I posted, would have to, s'plain it, to someone ! I will rephrase, (for the benefit of one) "I just took a sip of coffee when I read that. And seeing as how tt posted that, and that is something that tt constantly does. I laughed so hard I spit out the coffee. Now I have to clean my keyboard and screen !" |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/04/19 at 11:40:09 1A390427253E3930570 wrote:
A-Yep, Just knew that after I posted, would have to, s'plain it, to someone ! I will rephrase, (for the benefit of one) "I just took a sip of coffee when I read that. And seeing as how tt posted that, and that is something that tt constantly does. I laughed so hard I spit out the coffee. Now I have to clean my keyboard and screen !" [/quote] Oh, so you don't agree? OK. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by raydawg on 10/04/19 at 11:46:00 4764597A7863646D0A0 wrote:
A-Yep, Just knew that after I posted, would have to, s'plain it, to someone ! I will rephrase, (for the benefit of one) "I just took a sip of coffee when I read that. And seeing as how tt posted that, and that is something that tt constantly does. I laughed so hard I spit out the coffee. Now I have to clean my keyboard and screen !" [/quote] Can't you read the sign......???? Fishing Season is Closed ;D |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/04/19 at 11:53:24 4F5C44595C4A5A3D0 wrote:
On here, fishing season is 24/7/365. Lots of big mouths with bait in them. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by WebsterMark on 10/04/19 at 11:56:28 As usual, I see no one can debate the content of a Coulter column. Those who have, have been destroyed. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by Eegore on 10/04/19 at 12:10:17 I'm not a huge fan of any column that doesn't provide verifiable source material including Coulter. Its her written opinion: "probably read it" "Perhaps he" "suggests that" What is there to debate? |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by raydawg on 10/04/19 at 12:14:05 0D3F38292E3F28173B28315A0 wrote:
Mark, Ann is selling herself, that is just the nature of the business.... She is savvy, and has a keen sense of reading information, and comparing the discrepancies.... I always said, the INTERNET, with its TOTAL RECALL abilities, would be the saving grace of the lies and deceit , of again, those profiting off of "information"....deploy to advance their own cause, which is, first and foremost, their own wealth and welfare, not some real belief if making a better world.... If that was the case, religion would be the biggest story pushed. Also, when the Communist/Socialist/Marxist leaders said democracy would fall upon itself, based on the unfettered policies of "free speech" they had no idea that a INTERNET would be invented ( thank you AlGORE.....) Because if things had stayed the same, and you saw "free speech" and political parties, form a alliance on how its delivered...HELL, look, some are calling for Trump's Twitter account to be censored, or taken away...WTF??? Those who foresaw this real danger, they would have been absolutely correct! I believe now, this is the final fight, to see if mankind can honestly live under the banner of FREE SPEECH Which includes....ALL speech. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by raydawg on 10/04/19 at 12:15:17 7A5A58504D5A3F0 wrote:
Then CNN, MSNBC, etc....must not be your cup of tea, either, as they report their opinion, as facts. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/04/19 at 12:16:55 4C7E79686F7E69567A69701B0 wrote:
There's not really anything to debate. The whole FBI "good guy/bad guy in 2016" thing has run its course. You can frame it in either being for or against Clinton or trump. Plus, we're talking about a story that's over 4 years old now.... Yes, it was run poorly. Comey made some bad decisions in reporting to the public. But that doesn't take away form the fact of what was actually done by trump's campaign. You know, like how trump jr went to meet with foreign nationals for the specific reason to get dirt on Clinton - then lied about it... It also doesn't diminish what trump himself has done regarding the Bidens and the Ukraine just this year. He's admitted to it. He sees nothing wrong with it. (that's the whole problem in a nutshell) I think ann's article came out a little too premature. I see no mention about Volker. She may want to update it..... |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/04/19 at 12:17:46 42514954514757300 wrote:
Then CNN, MSNBC, etc....must not be your cup of tea, either, as they report their opinion, as facts. - Don't forget fox news ray... [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by Eegore on 10/04/19 at 12:33:41 "Then CNN, MSNBC, etc....must not be your cup of tea, either, as they report their opinion, as facts." Absolutely. I have stated multiple times before I do not utilize mainstream media and when proposing data to support my points I have never used them. They are entertainment with a few facts tossed in. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by raydawg on 10/04/19 at 14:30:19 1B3B39312C3B5E0 wrote:
OK...I can agree with that, however, where do you get your points and how did you arrive, at them? I will let you answer without my "sermon" .... so as to not bias you ;) |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by raydawg on 10/04/19 at 14:47:41 Look....FOX was born out of a void, in news reporting.... They did not create that void. It was understanding the market, and filling that need. And the way so many folks rely on polls to affirm them, and bolster their arguments, when those polls favor them, I ask now, why FOX is having way better ratings (similar matrix as polling) than the so called, mainstream medias? Sure, you can say they are sheep, etc, but in doing so, you just might as well put yourself into that pen, as well...... I think most NEWS outlets have, as egore referred, become mostly entertainment. Case in point, I saw a article yesterday where it said Obama didn't want Biden in 2016, and this is why Biden didn't run, etc.... However, if you dig a little deeper and see the comment, and context, he never said that as reported..... (paraphrasing here) He said it would be a historical continuation of his presidency if she was to be elected.....as in, First election to office of a Black man, followed by the first ever woman... And that statement of his is true...it would have been. It wasn't, as some report, he didn't want another old white dude.... But again, as evidenced by Trump, he is acting just as all the other players, act, and they only fault the others, for doing it.... The hypocrisy is rampant, and quite frankly, disgusting.... My wish would be to wake the day after the elections to find every incumbent having lost, and that it continues on until the midterm after that, and get rid of them all, AND that the INTERNET and social media renders the "organized" news markets, useless and impotent..... But I'll be dead by the time this should happen..... |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by raydawg on 10/04/19 at 14:54:33 Maybe not, here is a story where the journalist did their homework.... If I could only live as long to see this as the norm.... :) The Washington Post awarded “Four Pinocchios” to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Friday, claiming he hadn't told the truth about his knowledge of the whistleblower. Schiff has played a leading role in investigating the Trump-Ukraine scandal but hasn’t been truthful in the process, according to Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler. Kessler laid out a compelling, fact-based argument that Schiff wasn’t honest when asked if he had advanced knowledge about the whistleblower’s concerns regarding the now-infamous phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a series of interviews. “Schiff’s answers are especially interesting in the wake of reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post that the whistleblower approached a House Intelligence Committee staff member for guidance before filing a complaint with the Intelligence Community inspector general,” Kessler wrote. Last month, Schiff sat down with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who asked if he was in contact with the whistleblower, or even if he simply knew their identity. “I don’t know the identity of the whistleblower … I don’t want to get into any particulars. I want to make sure that there’s nothing that I do that jeopardizes the whistleblower in any way,” Schiff told CNN when asked if the whistleblower has contacted him. The Post called this answer a “classic dodge” and noted that the CNN host didn’t bother with a follow-up question – which helped Schiff avoid giving a potentially damaging answer. “He managed not to mislead; he just simply did not answer the question,” Kessler wrote of Schiff. “Schiff earns Four Pinocchios.” — Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler The very next day, Schiff appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he seemingly graduated from dodging to lying, the Post says. “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” Schiff said on MSNBC. Kessler noted that this is “flat-out false” given information that has since become available. Trump blasts Schiff as the NYT reports the House Intel chair had prior contact with the whistleblowerVideo “Unlike the quick two-step dance he performed with Anderson Cooper, Schiff simply says the committee had not spoken to the whistleblower. Now we know that’s not true,” the Post’s fact-checker wrote. A committee spokesman attempted to defend Schiff in a statement to the Post: “He intended to answer the question of whether the Committee had heard testimony from the whistleblower, which they had not… the whistleblower was then awaiting instructions from the Acting DNI as to how the whistleblower could contact the Committee. Nonetheless, he acknowledges that his statement should have been more carefully phrased to make that distinction clear.” On Sept. 19, Schiff was at it again, according to the Post, when speaking with reporters at the Capitol. “In the absence of the actions, and I want to thank the inspector general, in the absence of his actions in coming to our committee, we might not have even known there was a whistleblower complaint alleging an urgent concern,” Schiff said. The Post’s fact-checker called this “misleading” comment “more dissembling” and noted that “his committee knew that something explosive was going to be filed with the IG.” Kessler wrote there “are right ways and wrong ways to answer reporters’ questions if a politician wants to maintain his or her credibility” and there is “nothing wrong with dodging a question, as long as you don’t try to mislead.” But Schiff “clearly made a statement that was false” on MSNBC and “compounded his falsehood” when speaking with reporters at the Capitol, Kessler wrote. “The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity,” Kessler wrote. “Schiff earns Four Pinocchios.” The Post’s Fact Checker team considered Four Pinocchios to be “whoppers” and most egregious offense outside of the rare “Bottomless Pinocchio.” Republicans have also decried how Schiff, during a hearing last week, read a "parody" version of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine's president. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by thumperclone on 10/04/19 at 15:33:33 why argue about an op-ed? opinions are like a holes cept mine don't stink ;D |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by raydawg on 10/04/19 at 15:57:56 405C415944514657585B5A51340 wrote:
Nah....you is just use to it ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/07/19 at 06:22:48 3B28302D283E2E490 wrote:
LOL, not even close. Sorry. http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-ailes-blueprint-fox-news-2011-6 |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by WebsterMark on 10/07/19 at 06:37:14 If anyone doesn't understand that Fox News supplied a demand, they're a fool. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by Eegore on 10/07/19 at 07:55:05 "OK...I can agree with that, however, where do you get your points and how did you arrive, at them?" There are a multitude of methods used to gain knowledge and opinion on any topic. There would be a combination of contributing factors of varying percentages for each topic. I typically get my points by researching data from what I deem appropriate resources that have references for all information they provide including data collection methods that allow me to replicate their math or procedure to see if I arrive at the same outcome. CNN, FOX, MSN etc, rarely do this and as such I would not use them to assess a presented topic and develop an opinion that can be facilitated through data and verifiable source material. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/07/19 at 09:10:17 506265747362754A66756C070 wrote:
Read the letter, mark. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by WebsterMark on 10/08/19 at 03:16:27 2E303F3E332E35285A0 wrote:
Read the letter, mark.[/quote] I've heard this argument before. The flaw in your thinking is when the idea is mentioned to put the GOP news on TV is that the current news is nonbiased and not favoring one side. That wasn't true then and it's certainly not now. Fox, Rush Limbaugh and right wing radio filled a gap created by a left leaning news media and entertainment culture. Today we have a situation when a station or TV show can survive and be very profitable by drawing from one side of the political spectrum. SNL, The Tonight Show, NBC News all get enough viewers to make money the same as Tucker Carlson, Hannity and Rush. There is no mainstream, fair and balanced news or entertainment outlet. That would be impossible anyway. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/08/19 at 10:17:37 0D3F38292E3F28173B28315A0 wrote:
Read the letter, mark.[/quote] I've heard this argument before. The flaw in your thinking is when the idea is mentioned to put the GOP news on TV is that the current news is nonbiased and not favoring one side. That wasn't true then and it's certainly not now. Fox, Rush Limbaugh and right wing radio filled a gap created by a left leaning news media and entertainment culture. Today we have a situation when a station or TV show can survive and be very profitable by drawing from one side of the political spectrum. SNL, The Tonight Show, NBC News all get enough viewers to make money the same as Tucker Carlson, Hannity and Rush. There is no mainstream, fair and balanced news or entertainment outlet. That would be impossible anyway.[/quote] And before that there was The Smothers Brothers, Laugh-In, All In The Family and the like. Unlike today, the news broadcasts in the days of Brinkley and Cronkite actually reported the unbiased truth. What nixon did was wrong. What we did in Vietnam was wrong. The news back then just shined a light. Now, for some reason, all's fair. The major networks only report the mood of either side. It's all about "people are saying..." They don't call out the truth. Like the fact that what trump did with Ukraine was unconstitutional. Like the fact that his administration is in shambles. Like the fact that the conservatives are hypocrites when dealing with trump. But to be clear, it's not as much about party as you want it to be. In the last 10 years or so, it's been about the hyperbolic rhetoric by the likes of rush, hannity, o'reilly, sharpton, etc. A lot of it stemmed from the conservatives railing on Obama 24/7. That, and the rampant hypocrisy that's on full display now with trump as their conservative "saviour". You can't sit there an lie to yourself about how most everything trump is doing now in terms of his demeanor, twitter, etc. - wouldn't have set you cons aflame had Obama done it. You can't - but you do. Christ, his golfing/vacations alone should be enough for the cons to be alarmed. But again, they're not. They don't care. It's party over everything. SMH |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by WebsterMark on 10/08/19 at 18:27:56 Unlike today, the news broadcasts in the days of Brinkley and Cronkite actually reported the unbiased truth. ....and people like you are why we have Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Thank you. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by WebsterMark on 10/08/19 at 18:40:24 Christ, his golfing/vacations alone should be enough for the cons to be alarmed. But again, they're not. They don't care. It's party over everything. Again, what you can't seem to get through your head is it was Trump over Hilary in 2016 and it will be Trump over Warren in 2020. It's not party necessarily. Many long time Democratic voters said hell no in 2016 like they'll probably say hell no in 2020. Listen closely again, people chose Donald f'ing Trump because they loathed Hilary that much. And they will choose him again because they will loathe Warren that much. Face reality. Hilary won over 4.2 million more votes in California than Trump, but he won 1.3 million more votes in the other 49 states. That's where your precious 3 million more votes comes from, entirely in California. Vast, vast stretches of the nations loathes the Democratic Party's Presidential Candidates. Your candidates and policies are so pathetic, so anti-American, Donald Trump is the President of the United States. You suck that bad. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/09/19 at 06:07:58 132126373021360925362F440 wrote:
LOL, huh? No, afraid not. roger ailes and rush are why we have them. It's the dolts that drink their kool-aid that makes them millionaires. Look no further than this forum. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by WebsterMark on 10/09/19 at 06:10:48 You're a fool. No one believes that except other fools. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/09/19 at 06:16:15 467473626574635C70637A110 wrote:
No, you listen closely ray - the people chose Hillary by a 3 million vote majority. The only reason donny won was the electoral college. Even there, he only won by 70,000 votes. All that with her running a sh!tty campaign - and she skipped Wisconsin.... My candidates are polling roughly 10 points over donny. My candidates represent the interests of the majority of the country. My candidates want to actually help the american people. Did you forget that you actually showed support for a socialist idea? Remember your post about the homeless? Yeah, go ahead and vote for trump. You represent a minority of the public. The rest of us will vote him out. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/09/19 at 06:17:41 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
There's nothing to believe. It's a fact mark. The idiots who eat the pablum of fox are the some ones who think angels are real and Obama is a Muslim. |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by MnSpring on 10/09/19 at 06:47:03 223C33323F223924560 wrote:
And those votes were by, CITIZENS of the USA ??????? PROVE that they were !!! When several States, including Calf, NY, and MN, have NO Requirement of PROOF, one is a Citizen before they vote ! (Just check a box on paper or computer, ""in Minn in one of 23 different languages"", with NO PROOF, one is a Citizen) Gee wonder why Obama, said several times Illegal Immigration MUST be controlled. And Obama, STARTED, the separation of Illegal/sneak in families, (Which Trump was blamed for) And NOW, the UL FDS GBS's want more, and More, and MORE, Illegals. Is it so they can, 'vote' ??????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Who doesn't love Ann? Post by T And T Garage on 10/09/19 at 06:50:18 4D6E537072696E67000 wrote:
And those votes were by, CITIZENS of the USA ??????? Yes. Do you have proof otherwise? PROVE that they were !!! - prove that they weren't. When several States, including Calf, NY, and MN, have NO Requirement of PROOF, one is a Citizen before they vote ! Then every single vote ever done in this county is null and void. (Just check a box on paper or computer, ""in Minn in one of 23 different languages"", with NO PROOF, one is a Citizen) Gee wonder why Obama, said several times Illegal Immigration MUST be controlled. And Obama, STARTED, the separation of Illegal/sneak in families, (Which Trump was blamed for) And NOW, the UL FDS GBS's want more, and More, and MORE, Illegals. Is it so they can, 'vote' ??????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |