Trump fans want Kelly banned from future debates

[BULLDOG]

how cute to see a leftwinger WHO hated on FOX NEWS care for some woman host on the station. isn't is so sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

Don't see much support for Kelly, but it is odd that this is the only time the right has acknowledged the one sided behavior that fox is known for. You really should read the OP. There is nothing there in support of fox or Kelly.

Stephanie can't read.....she's just angry because her idol Trump was exposed for what he is and she thinks we are defending Kelly. Kelly isn't smart enough or bold enough to have come up with those questions on her own. We've all known that Faux tells their commentators what to say.....so watch Faux News unleash it's wrath on Trump. It's going to be really fun watching.

I'm willing to bet that Kelly doesn't get fired.

It is really funny. All the RWNJs think we are either up in arms defending Trump, or adamant that Kelly did nothing wrong. They can't understand that the left knows they are both disgusting, and we are just enjoying the train wreck.

 

[S.J.]

how cute to see a leftwinger WHO hated on FOX NEWS care for some woman host on the station. isn't is so sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

Don't see much support for Kelly, but it is odd that this is the only time the right has acknowledged the one sided behavior that fox is known for. You really should read the OP. There is nothing there in support of fox or Kelly.

Stephanie can't read.....she's just angry because her idol Trump was exposed for what he is and she thinks we are defending Kelly. Kelly isn't smart enough or bold enough to have come up with those questions on her own. We've all known that Faux tells their commentators what to say.....so watch Faux News unleash it's wrath on Trump. It's going to be really fun watching.

I'm willing to bet that Kelly doesn't get fired.

Why should she be fired? You're really out of touch.

 

[Mertex]

how cute to see a leftwinger WHO hated on FOX NEWS care for some woman host on the station. isn't is so sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

Don't see much support for Kelly, but it is odd that this is the only time the right has acknowledged the one sided behavior that fox is known for. You really should read the OP. There is nothing there in support of fox or Kelly.

Stephanie can't read.....she's just angry because her idol Trump was exposed for what he is and she thinks we are defending Kelly. Kelly isn't smart enough or bold enough to have come up with those questions on her own. We've all known that Faux tells their commentators what to say.....so watch Faux News unleash it's wrath on Trump. It's going to be really fun watching.

I'm willing to bet that Kelly doesn't get fired.

Why should she be fired? You're really out of touch.

I meant fired as one of the moderators of the debate. I don't think Faux News will replace her with someone else. That's just my gut feeling. Why am I out of touch......thousands of Trump supporters are asking that she be removed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Listen to the libs bitching about free speech just after celebrating Trump being "disinvited" to the second debate.

Listen to the conservative exhibit his ignorance of what constitutes 'free speech.”

Free speech to you is liberal speech. Anything else, not so much.

No, moron – free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations, such as Fox, the RNC, or individual republican candidates.

A private organization not allowing a political candidate to participate at a debate doesn't constitute a 'violation' of 'free speech.'

Given your posting history, you truly are this stupid.

 

[S.J.]

Listen to the libs bitching about free speech just after celebrating Trump being "disinvited" to the second debate.

Listen to the conservative exhibit his ignorance of what constitutes 'free speech.”

Free speech to you is liberal speech. Anything else, not so much.

No, moron – free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations, such as Fox, the RNC, or individual republican candidates.

A private organization not allowing a political candidate to participate at a debate doesn't constitute a 'violation' of 'free speech.'

Given your posting history, you truly are this stupid.

Look at the deflection, everybody.

 

[browsing deer]

Wait till they get CNN questions. He can't handle the nerf ball questions from fox he has no business running for dogcatcher, let alone president

 

[BULLDOG]

Listen to the libs bitching about free speech just after celebrating Trump being "disinvited" to the second debate.

Listen to the conservative exhibit his ignorance of what constitutes 'free speech.”

Free speech to you is liberal speech. Anything else, not so much.

No, moron – free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations, such as Fox, the RNC, or individual republican candidates.

A private organization not allowing a political candidate to participate at a debate doesn't constitute a 'violation' of 'free speech.'

Given your posting history, you truly are this stupid.

Look at the deflection, everybody.

A direct response to the subject of your post is not deflection. Look it up silly.

 

[S.J.]

Listen to the libs bitching about free speech just after celebrating Trump being "disinvited" to the second debate.

Listen to the conservative exhibit his ignorance of what constitutes 'free speech.”

Free speech to you is liberal speech. Anything else, not so much.

No, moron – free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations, such as Fox, the RNC, or individual republican candidates.

A private organization not allowing a political candidate to participate at a debate doesn't constitute a 'violation' of 'free speech.'

Given your posting history, you truly are this stupid.

Look at the deflection, everybody.

A direct response to the subject of your post is not deflection. Look it up silly.

You want free speech when you're talking but if you're hearing something you don't like, you start splitting hairs. I call that deflection.

 

[Nosmo King]

Aren't these the same folks who complained that the press and "debate" monitors failed to adequately vet candidate Barack Obama in 2008?

There's something to that old saw about taking heat and getting out of kitchens.

 

[Katzndogz]

It doesn't matter. If it wasn't Kelly the RNC would have someone else ask inappropriate questions.

If the republican leadership really wanted to collapse Trump's support all they have to do is convince Jeb Bush to withdraw.

 

[BULLDOG]

Listen to the conservative exhibit his ignorance of what constitutes 'free speech.”

Free speech to you is liberal speech. Anything else, not so much.

No, moron – free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations, such as Fox, the RNC, or individual republican candidates.

A private organization not allowing a political candidate to participate at a debate doesn't constitute a 'violation' of 'free speech.'


Free speech doesn't mean anybody has to listen to your crap dummy. It means the government can't tell you to shut up, However I can. Shut up you big baby. You don't know what you are talking about.
Given your posting history, you truly are this stupid.

Look at the deflection, everybody.

A direct response to the subject of your post is not deflection. Look it up silly.

You want free speech when you're talking but if you're hearing something you don't like, you start splitting hairs. I call that deflection.

 

[BULLDOG]

Listen to the conservative exhibit his ignorance of what constitutes 'free speech.”

Free speech to you is liberal speech. Anything else, not so much.

No, moron – free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations, such as Fox, the RNC, or individual republican candidates.

A private organization not allowing a political candidate to participate at a debate doesn't constitute a 'violation' of 'free speech.'

Given your posting history, you truly are this stupid.

Look at the deflection, everybody.

A direct response to the subject of your post is not deflection. Look it up silly.

You want free speech when you're talking but if you're hearing something you don't like, you start splitting hairs. I call that deflection.

Free speech doesn't mean anybody has to listen to the crap you have to say. It just means the government can't tell you to shut up. However, I can. Shut up you big baby. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[S.J.]

Free speech to you is liberal speech. Anything else, not so much.

No, moron – free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations, such as Fox, the RNC, or individual republican candidates.

A private organization not allowing a political candidate to participate at a debate doesn't constitute a 'violation' of 'free speech.'

Given your posting history, you truly are this stupid.

Look at the deflection, everybody.

A direct response to the subject of your post is not deflection. Look it up silly.

You want free speech when you're talking but if you're hearing something you don't like, you start splitting hairs. I call that deflection.

Free speech doesn't mean anybody has to listen to the crap you have to say. It just means the government can't tell you to shut up. However, I can. Shut up you big baby. You don't know what you are talking about.

Fuck you. If you don't like what I say, don't fucking read it, dickwad.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, moron – free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations, such as Fox, the RNC, or individual republican candidates.

A private organization not allowing a political candidate to participate at a debate doesn't constitute a 'violation' of 'free speech.'

Given your posting history, you truly are this stupid.

Look at the deflection, everybody.

A direct response to the subject of your post is not deflection. Look it up silly.

You want free speech when you're talking but if you're hearing something you don't like, you start splitting hairs. I call that deflection.

Free speech doesn't mean anybody has to listen to the crap you have to say. It just means the government can't tell you to shut up. However, I can. Shut up you big baby. You don't know what you are talking about.

Fuck you. If you don't like what I say, don't fucking read it, dickwad.

Just to be clear, Is that what you're talking about when you whine about limiting free speech?.........you big baby.

 

[S.J.]

Look at the deflection, everybody.

A direct response to the subject of your post is not deflection. Look it up silly.

You want free speech when you're talking but if you're hearing something you don't like, you start splitting hairs. I call that deflection.

Free speech doesn't mean anybody has to listen to the crap you have to say. It just means the government can't tell you to shut up. However, I can. Shut up you big baby. You don't know what you are talking about.

Fuck you. If you don't like what I say, don't fucking read it, dickwad.

Just to be clear, Is that what you're talking about when you whine about limiting free speech?.........you big baby.

Dude, put the bottle down and sober up.

 

[shadow355]

quid pro quo. Trump uninvited-Kelly no more moderator.
Sounds like a plan to me.

A "Writ of mandamus" was sent to Trumps Attorney, having Trumps Attorney ORDER Donald Trump to no longer participate in debates, due Mr.Trump showing off his assinine behavior.

Shadow 355

 

[Gracie]

 

[DarkFury]

I just went over a 37 minute review of what was said. It was totally taken out of context from start to finish. It was a hatchet job pure and simple.

Here is that review double checking just exactly what happened. After listening to this I no longer think FOX should even be trusted to air a fair debate. And that's coming from me a long time ULTRA Conservative...

 

[DarkFury]

how cute to see a leftwinger WHO hated on FOX NEWS care for some woman host on the station. isn't is so sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

Don't see much support for Kelly, but it is odd that this is the only time the right has acknowledged the one sided behavior that fox is known for. You really should read the OP. There is nothing there in support of fox or Kelly.

Stephanie can't read.....she's just angry because her idol Trump was exposed for what he is and she thinks we are defending Kelly. Kelly isn't smart enough or bold enough to have come up with those questions on her own. We've all known that Faux tells their commentators what to say.....so watch Faux News unleash it's wrath on Trump. It's going to be really fun watching.

I'm willing to bet that Kelly doesn't get fired.

Why should she be fired? You're really out of touch.

Listen to this review with all the history of those comment. Kelly SHOULD be fired as it WAS a set up.

 

[shadow355]

It doesn't matter. If it wasn't Kelly the RNC would have someone else ask inappropriate questions.

If the republican leadership really wanted to collapse Trump's support all they have to do is convince Jeb Bush to withdraw.

Some people like myself in my current predicament......are presumed guilty till proven innocent. People whom use secret - privileged and secret surveillance information for their own use, and/or play the investigator role.....believing they have all the answers and their theory is sound.

People whom intimidate others ( like me )..... because if the real truth came out, more than likely criminal charges could be initiated against the real wrong doers.

People whom believe that an individual is really a terrible person, but in the end when the facts come out - the same people whom really hated your guts, whom wanted to see your demise, whom wanted you too move thousands of miles away.......all pat you on the back and say "Buddy ole pal". "I know you were right all along."

People whom use sensitive and secret surveillance info for their own benefit....need to be incarcerated. People whom intimidate others.....need to be incarcerated. People whom commit witness tampering and intimidate witnesses......need to be incarcerated. People whom "Molest others" ( severe physical and mental harassment ).....need to be incarcerated.

Sincerity is palpable !

Secrecy is the key to survival !

Shadow 355