tugboat

That's probably a good bet.That whole family story is a scam.We were duped big time.

tugboat

No thanks.Wouldn't care to be near either of them two for any reason in the world.

Glaucon

You are a multiple offending dupe big time.

tugboat

If one comment is an obsession you're beyond help.

Glaucon

I am sure the feeling would be mutual if they had the slightest hint of your insignificant old wrinkled ass..

Glaucon

Are you even unable to count?

tugboat

Unless I frequented a bath house in Chicago.Then I'd probably have to beat them away with a stick.

Glaucon

Your apology is accepted.

Glaucon

I don't think you would be acceptable to any bath house unless you bathed before trying for admission. Are you working your homosexual fantasies again. At your age you should be able to accept your sexual orientation.

Glaucon

If you need to beat yourself off, don't use a stick, just continue with your hands but wash them after beating it.

tugboat

I'm 48 and completely straight.You're the one getting all worked up over silly banter.Lol.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

The poor man just can't break his penis obsession with everyone.....

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Our ruling

Priebus said, "The fact is" the Clinton Foundation has "got about 80 percent in overhead and 20 percent of the money is actually getting into the places it should."

Priebus is incorrectly reading IRS documents. Only a small amount of the donations collected by the Clinton Foundation are awarded as grants to other nonprofit groups. But that doesn’t mean that every other dollar is "overhead."

The Clinton Foundation spends between 80-90 percent on program services, which experts say is the standard in the industry to define charitable works. It spends the majority of its money directly on projects rather than through third-party grants.

Conversely, only between 10-20 percent is spent on management of the foundation and fundraising activities, which is tagged as "overhead."

Priebus’ claim rates False.

bahmer

The funniest thing about this Michelle being Michael was the black pastors watching video of Michelle dancing and them seeing her penis showing through her dress or pants suit whichever it was as she danced and they didn't like the fact that they were duped into believing that she was actually a he. They were really upset and they I believe told their respective churches as to what they had found.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Gat,


This is in a very good explanation.. About an Indian drug company and only distribution by the Clinton group..

For a full understanding, read the article by using the link..

The allegations are false. Again and again, they have been found false.. Started by a Republican who is simply lying and picked up and pushed by the daily caller...



http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/sep/23/daily-caller/conservative-website-wrongly-ties-clinton-foundati/

Our ruling

The Daily Caller said that the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative distributed "watered-down HIV/AIDS drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa."

At the most literal level, the statement is a misreading of a report from a conservative Republican who said the foundation "likely facilitated" the distribution of watered-down HIV/AIDS drugs.

Neither version of the claim -- centering around the drugmaker Ranbaxy -- is proven. In fact, a host of regulatory agencies have found the drugs in question to be safe.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said there was no evidence the drugs themselves were substandard. The World Health Organization, South Africa’s Medicines Control Council and the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency tested the Ranbaxy drugs and found them to be safe. Such testing dates back to at least 2005.

We rate this statement False.

Update and correction (Sept. 29, 2016): After this item posted, we heard from Mark Tapscott, executive editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation, a 501(c)3 organization that says it provides investigative reporting for the public benefit. The group does not publicly list its donors. Tapscott listed what he called nine factual errors in our story. We reviewed his claims and found most of them without merit, as they failed to distinguish between Ranbaxy’s HIV/AIDS drugs and its other products.

Tapscott, however, correctly noted that in 2004 WHO decertified three of Ranbaxy’s HIV/AIDS drugs. Ranbaxy’s HIV/AIDS drugs were recertified the following year. The story now reflects that information, as well as the correct year in which the Justice Department filed charges against Ranbaxy.

Our rating remains unchanged.