Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rightturnsonly

  1. As a religion, yes; but if you are equating exterminating radical islam with exterminating all those who believe it, then no.
  2. 66 people are talking about this 193 people are talking about this 219 people are talking about this At this point, all Putin has to do is talk and let your TDS take over.
  3. This isn't "breaking news", you whiners have been spouting that nonsense since impeachment.
  4. "Tell the truth and we'll give you a lesser sentence" happens in law enforcement all the time. Guess we should get rid of it because it's bribery.
  5. It's as Mark Levin would call it, a pseudo-event. It's being used by the leftist media to perpetuate a falsehood that Assange was asked to compose a lie in exchange for a pardon. Considering that the DNC intentionally refused to have their servers inspected by the FBI, to keep the FBI from finding all their illegal activity IMHO, all the FBI has is the word of whomever inspected the servers that the Russians hacked them. Why should it be believed?
  6. Why are you calling it a bribe? Why are you saying it is in exchange for "saying something" instead of the "evidence" that is reported in the Wall Street Journal article? You might as well be asking, "are you still beating your wife?".
  7. Okay, I may have been wrong. Let's see, Hannity's interview was posted Jan 3, 2017. I'm assuming you think Dana brokered this deal for Trump before this date. From this link https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-congressman-sought-trump-deal-on-wikileaks-russia-1505509918?tesla=y#comments_sector it starts out under the title it says Now I would argue that Jan 3, 2017 happened BEFORE September 15, 2017 and that the reference to "this week" in the WSJ article implies the event happened in the week surrounding September 15, 2017. Now, perhaps the word 'updated' means the article was made some time earlier, but that would leave readers uninformed about the date "this week" is referring to, which would be bad journalism. So, Assange had publicly commented on this issue. Furthermore, "in exchange for what he described as evidence" from the WSJ isn't the same as Assange saying, "that the pardon was conditional on him publicly announcing that Russia had nothing to do with the attack on the 2016 election". Assange can publicly say what he wants but that needs to be backed up with evidence. and never forget, that you added the word "lie" to your thread title as if Assange used the word. I'm sure you learned this tactic from Schiff and his false reading into the record of Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian President.
  8. Next, you'll be telling me you are not a racist because you've had more than your share of negros. lol
  9. From the two pics in this thread, she looks black. You disagree? I suppose it could be the hairstyle, a good tan and some make-up throwing me off.
  10. In 2017, a The Wall Street Journal report said that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) attempted to broker a deal for a pardon or clemency between the White House and Assange. Assange is wanted in the United States on 18 counts of violating espionage laws and conspiring to hack government computers. You know how I know this is fake news? Julian Assange has already publicly said Russia had nothing to do with DNC leaks, or at least what wikileaks had.
  11. More than your share? You greedy bastard. lol Just saying, she's not ugly, not a 10 either, but definitely not ugly, IMHO. I can agree to disagree, but since she's black, you're obviously racist, lol.
  12. How do they get themselves mixed in with the savages? How can we get them to use the door? It certainly isn't by telling or encouraging them to mix themselves up with the savages going over the wall like the left is doing.
  13. Ahhh, you're just letting the assumption she's a liberal guide you.
  • Create New...