So the fact that Bill Clinton is a documented repeat sexual predator who was protected by his wife, who attacked and intimidated women she had every reason to believe were telling the truth, is somehow irrelevant. The sexual history of a Trump surrogate who was arguing about Kelly's biased coverage is however highly relevant? Newt isn't running for anything. At the time the media were adamant that Clinton's sexual escapades were none of our business. Trump's far less lurid history however is reason enough to disqualify him. And now the talking point from the HRC campaign, dutifully repeated by their media allies, is that Newt's exchange with Megyn is renewed evidence of the republican "war on women." So on the eve of the election, the actual issues are ignored in favor of rehashing whether Trump did or did not brush up against some bimbo in a Manhattan bar. And objecting to that editorial choice means you are waging a war on women. The media will ignore Hillary and attack your character. And then wring their hands wondering why the public detests them so much.
You missed the point entirely. Navarro wasn't "destroying" Cooper's argument, she was upping the ante against Gingrich, who was the one who wasn't able to distinguish between sex and alleged sexual predation. Cooper was making the milder point that Gingrich was throwing stones from a glass house talking about a fascination with sex before Navarro indicted Gingrich for implicitly equating sex and alleged sexual predation. She went one step further than Cooper; she didn't go in the opposite direction. Seriously, jem? You can't follow a simple discussion and yet you think you can follow the string on matters relating to science? That's rich.
are you being dense on purpose here. I know you are not normally stupid - just a douchy leftist. Of course she was attempting to support cooper but the irony was she destroyed him. I was pointing out her quote actually shows Coopers attack on Gingrich was illogical. AAA elaborated on my point in a way. Why is the sexual history of Gingrich relevant when his history as far as I know was all consensual? If we were to apply Coopers illogic to Cooper's own life... Coopers own sexual history should disqualify him from having an opinion unless he is a celibate gay man. to follow this out to conclusion for the truly dense... if Gingrich had been faithful he could comment but if he had sex outside of marriage he could not? Ana just told us it about sex being consensual vs being a predator.
There is no need for Fox to pay up for Megyn. I nominate this woman as her replacement. She may not speak English, but do we really care and who are we to judge anyway? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ For those who find the news boring, they may want to turn their attentions to this footage for a more exciting broadcast. Italian star Marika Fruscio was presenting on news channel 7 Gold in a rather revealing dress. As she leans back in her chair to listen to her co-hosts debate, her dress falls open. She struggles to maintain her large bust in the skimpy dress. Her male co-hosts appear to be doing all they can to avoid looking in her direction. At one point, Marika realises she’s revealing a little more than she should and pulls her dress across her cleavage. Marika is a TV favourite in Italy. She’s become famed for her playful personality and 37G-25-37 frame. YOUTUBE/seller1982 Marika's wardrobe malfunction set temperatures racing http://www.express.co.uk/life-style...raffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain
it overestimated your intelligence in my previous post. you are a douchey moron leftist and an embarrassment to Canada.