The Snopes article speaks for itself.
Rebecca Gavin

“Go away, you’re a cockroach and a fool.”

Yet you still haven’t provided one example of the Snopes article contradicting anything I’ve written. Your latest attempt fails yet again as I said there’s no evidence Hillary Clinton objected to the transfer, which shows the transfer of an ownership interest in a strategic asset to Russia didn’t bother her enough to step into a role she had a right to occupy and lodge an objection. By your own argument, she didn’t even pay attention to it (unless you are saying HRC, in defiance of everything we know about her, let an underling make a call with which she disagreed and for which she ultimately bore responsibility).

If it didn’t even rate a notice on her radar, how could she have objected? You are confirming (over and over and over) what I have written, not contradicting it.

Yet I am the fool. Too funny.

As for Cernovich, you again demonstrate your disregard for facts:

Here’s one thing I’ve written about him:

“Michael Cernovich is a legitimately vile, disgusting person. Those Counterpunch pieces, though pretentious as hell, have a point — collaborating with someone like Cernovich does more harm to your argument than good. Any firepower he (or someone like him) would bring to the table is immediately rendered impotent by stuff like denying date rape exists, trading in conspiracy theory nonsense like Pizzagate, reflexively shouting ‘PEDOPHILE!!!’ at those he sees as opponents and quotes like ‘diversity is code for white genocide.’”

And here’s another:

“In the wake of predictable and justifiable criticism for name-checking [Cernovich] who rightfully alienates the majority of minorities and women — two somewhat critical groups for left-leaning movements, no? — you don’t correct the error…Can you really not see how this whole episode proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that association with grotesques such as Cernovich is counterproductive?”

You don’t engage on Citizens United b/c you are at direct odds with the liberal justices’ dissent and have no defense for that.

As for your previous ad hominem, there are plenty of ways to call me a kiss ass without bringing Greenwald’s sexuality into it. I say again, if you’re not homophobic, then that was a very strange way to frame the ad hominem.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.