Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Clinton Cash.

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Sure watch the movie. But watch it informed by this:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

Mediamatters is a wing of the Democrap Party and it's STATED goal is to attack Fox Cable News for disseminating the
t***h about how the Democraps are destroying the moral fabric of this country. H**E the T***H don't you?

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

sorry... this is the 21st century. you have fucking awesome technology at your disposal. If you can't make your point in 3.33 minutes, you're just trying some form of hypnosis.


... but maybe you think the conservative agenda will be advanced by stealing an hour out of every democrat's life? ...and maybe cast doubt among the weaker.

and well, I'm already sold, Clinton has low integrity, so does Trump... I'm not v****g so I can reserve the right to b***h about either candidate...both are indefensible!

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

My reference is well sourced and you would know that if you bothered to put more than 15 seconds of thought into the matter (which is about all it too for you to barf out some of your signature gibberish).

I don't think anyone needs to take any lectures on "moral fiber" from a h**eful bottom feeder like you.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

I agree that both have no integrity, but Democraps spend at least an hour contemplating their navel while sitting on the toilet taking a Hillary.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

As I said Mediamatters is a very sleazy site for bottom feeding assholes like you and other l*****ts whose moral fiber is just toilet paper.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Clinton's have a long history of corruption, even before the Rich pardon. You would not accept attacking the source as a proper refutation of a story exposing GW Bush or other conservatives, the movie brings facts to light that certainly had the New York Times asking many questions. Just the fact that a two billion dollar foundation only spends 10% of its proceeds on actual charity should be of some interest to you. The associations and donors to the charity many through a web of third parties should also make you question the legitimacy of the foundation, and the actions taken by the State Department in favor of donors and those who paid Bill up to more than 3 times his previous speaking fees should also catch your attention.

As far as media matters goes? Really Bazbo, media matters is noting more than the propaganda arm of the progressive movement, hardly a credible or unbiased source, I notice that they do not address "Clinton Cash", they however have worked very hard to destroy the credibility of its author often by sourcing other biased media. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have taken a hard look at the foundation after the book was published and came away with many damning questions and very few answers.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Thats a pretty presumptive argument that I would not be equally critical of a serial liar doing a hit piece on Bush. Based on nothing but your cartoon version of a "libtard" I presume. Maybe its based on some secret knowledge of me personally--I would be fascinated to know.

Note, I made no comment about the movie, so knock down that straw man all you want if it makes you feel better. I just pointed out that its author has had some serious problems telling the t***h in the past. This is something that a critically thinking person should know about while watching the movie. And if I wanted to stoop to your level of snide, I would add that critical thinking seems to be in pretty short supply in your response to me.

Dont you think it interesting that you choose to attack media matters rather than actually try to defend YOUR source? My source comes with verifiable references. YOUR source comes with a history of deception and a partisan agenda.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Libtard is your word, I don't think that I said anything that comes close, if that is a word that you wish to use to describe yourself, knock yourself out.

I don't care a bit about how you perceive the author nor do I feel the need to defend him, I only care about the content of his book and film, discuss the content, do a little research if you want to challenge it, throwing up a hit piece from media matters which sources other left wing media is means nothing, talk about lazy! You throw up a piece that does not even approach discussing the content of the book as some sort of defense of the Clintons, nothing to see here, I am calling bulls**t, if you want to discredit the work then bring us some facts.