sort by best latest
Best Answer Keith Abt says
Duane Townsend says
It seems like pure evil brainwashing.
John Wilson says
Tamara Wilhite says
Lisa Vollrath says
Golly, could have sworn they thought alt right was whacko when they said something was wrong with hillary killary.
On sorry, the alt right was correct, and CNN was just covering it up.
Surely not fake at all........
There's a difference between not being able to verify a story, and just making sh!t up. Not running a story is not fake, it's biased. Clearly not something you're interested in understanding, since "hillary killary" is all you've said for months.
Huh, wonder why they tout "fake news" sites without "verifying".
Or is verification only needed when it doesn't suit their agenda?
The last is a much more likely scenario.
Biased is fake, omission is as good as a lie.
You're right. Deliberate omission is a lie. I think it unconscionable that liberals, in their lust for control, would "drag the hag " hillary, to the finish, no matter how physically unfit she is.
"Drag the hag!" I missed that one. What a chant! The Democrats should have used that at her rallies, that's better than "lock her up"
- See all 5 commentsHide extra comments
Aren Panganiban says
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
David B Katague says
One time anderson cooper got all mad because people were questioning the validity of the fake footage he and cnn was disseminating.
I find this answer very interesting. I think that if we think about it -- loving something that is pure factual, just does not happen. Loving an emotive opinion piece makes sense. One does not love a dog, one loves what the dog does. Love no matter??
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments