Hannity going 'head-to-head' with Mad Cow Maddow.. May the best man win!
Sep 19, 2017 12:02:29 #
JFlorio wrote:
You might want to stop flogging your beanie weenie and do some actual research.
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/category/ratings
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/category/ratings
Those 'ratings', eh? Right up there with all those self-love awards those actors and actresses bestow upon one another--- EXCEPT for the most incredibly ignorant of all the actors- Obama. He bestowed himself a grand citizen of the party award, didn't he?
Sep 19, 2017 12:10:52 #
Super Dave wrote:
MSNBC has hated it's way to leading about 6 or 8 of the last 160+ months. Not a trend likely to last.
Hate as a motivation doesn't last.
Hate as a motivation doesn't last.
Hah! "Hate" is Fox's middle name. We saw that all through the Obama administration.
Sep 19, 2017 12:14:51 #
kemmer wrote:
Hah! "Hate" is Fox's middle name. We saw that all through the Obama administration.
'Hate', is it? You label anything "HATE" that gets in your way to getting the worst candidates in the history of this country elected to office. You label any opinion different from yours as "HATE", also, don't you?
Babies are like that.
Sep 19, 2017 12:38:51 #
kemmer wrote:
Hah! "Hate" is Fox's middle name. We saw that all through the Obama administration.
I'm not surprised you were bleet that or a similar canned response.
Anyone that doesn't lie for Democrats are prorated that way to you by your thought-masters.
Sep 19, 2017 12:40:31 #
S. Maturin wrote:
'Hate', is it? You label anything "HATE" that gets in your way to getting the worst candidates in the history of this country elected to office. You label any opinion different from yours as "HATE", also, don't you?
Babies are like that.
Babies are like that.
Trump was a worse candidate, just a better person and better prospect to be POTUS.
Sep 19, 2017 12:56:32 #
S. Maturin wrote:
'Hate', is it? You label anything "HATE" that gets in your way to getting the worst candidates in the history of this country elected to office. You label any opinion different from yours as "HATE", also, don't you?
Babies are like that.
Babies are like that.
MSNBC doesn't 'hate' Trump; it merely is wont to point out his gross incompetence, shady business practices, and attempts to turn the presidency into his personal family cash cow.
Sep 19, 2017 15:25:25 #
kemmer wrote:
MSNBC doesn't 'hate' Trump; it merely is wont to point out his gross incompetence, shady business practices, and attempts to turn the presidency into his personal family cash cow.
Grow up.
There are no facts to back up your little tantrum
Sep 19, 2017 15:46:59 #
nwtk2007
Loc: Texas
proud republican wrote:
My bet is on Hannity.....
Heck, I thought it might be a head to head debate/cut/slash session!
Sep 19, 2017 16:06:57 #
Super Dave wrote:
Grow up.
There are no facts to back up your little tantrum
There are no facts to back up your little tantrum
Apart from the 11 lawsuits against Trump for stiffing contractors and workers? Let's not forget that spectacular scam "Trump U.". No American bank will lend him money.
Get a clue!
Sep 19, 2017 16:52:51 #
Super Dave wrote:
Trump was a worse candidate, just a better person and better prospect to be POTUS.
Your interpretation; your opinion.
Nothing whatever to do with fact.
You preferred a criminal gun moll of a murderess/thief. Pfffft!
Sep 19, 2017 17:00:23 #
kemmer wrote:
Apart from the 11 lawsuits against Trump for stiffing contractors and workers? Let's not forget that spectacular scam "Trump U.". No American bank will lend him money.
Get a clue!
Get a clue!
That is both false and has nothing to do with your childhood accusations, dipskittle.
Sep 19, 2017 17:14:00 #
Super Dave wrote:
That is both false and has nothing to do with your childhood accusations, dipskittle.
Childhood??
Hahahah.... Disprove them, dickhead!
Sep 19, 2017 18:29:01 #
kemmer wrote:
Childhood??
Hahahah.... Disprove them, dickhead!
Hahahah.... Disprove them, dickhead!
Disprove your stupid allogations that had no facts presented to support them?
Why would I bother?
Would you bother to dispute an allogation that you are currently engaged in beastiality with a gerbile?
Your stupid allogation had equal merit and supportive proof.
You disprove mine and I'll disprove yours.
Sep 19, 2017 18:46:05 #
Super Dave wrote:
Disprove your stupid allogations that had no facts presented to support them?
Why would I bother?
Would you bother to dispute an allogation that you are currently engaged in beastiality with a gerbile?
Your stupid allogation had equal merit and supportive proof.
You disprove mine and I'll disprove yours.
Why would I bother?
Would you bother to dispute an allogation that you are currently engaged in beastiality with a gerbile?
Your stupid allogation had equal merit and supportive proof.
You disprove mine and I'll disprove yours.
You really ought to do something about your spelling.
Sep 19, 2017 18:51:13 #
kemmer wrote:
You really ought to do something about your spelling.
You should do something about your sex life with gerbils and stop worrying about other people's spelling.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.