Comments by "Perhaps" (@NoEgg4u) on "Fox News" channel.

  1. 86
  2. 25
  3. 16
  4. 10
  5. 8
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 2
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. @2:40 "Now he's (Hunter Biden) an artist" No, he is not an artist. Yes, he sells art. But that does not make him an artist. I sold my car. That does not make me an auto manufacturer. Hunter Biden sells art to as a cover for selling access to the Oval Office. No one has ever seen Hunter create art. No one has ever seen Hunter make a single brush stroke. The media has never asked Hunter from where he purchases his art supplies. No one has ever checked with the art store (any art store) to verify that Hunter made purchases for his art related supplies. No one has ever asked Hunter how he chooses his brushes. No one has ever asked Hunter how he chooses his canvases. No one has ever asked Hunter from where does he get his inspiration for art he claims he created. No one has ever asked Hunter if he ever had formal training -- did he ever take an art class of have a private tutor, and to name the class and/or the tutor. No one has ever asked Hunter for how long he has been painting. And why did he start painting only recently? And if he claims he has been painting for decades, then where are those paintings? I am not an artist, and even I know several questions that the media should ask Hunter. Imagine if the media spoke to a few real artists, to comprise a list of art related questions. Folks, please never (really -- never) lose sight that we are dealing with radical leftist criminals. They lie and they lie and they lie. Just because Hunter claims he is an artist, or just because he puts paintings up for sale, do not believe his assertion that he is an artist. Hunter Biden is not an artist. Hunter Biden sells paintings that some other anonymous person is painting. Like his father, Hunter Biden is a career criminal.
    1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40.  @Rambleism  I wrote to you: "For the sake of making a point, let's assume that Trump is guilty of every offense ever thrown at him... Elwood Rambler, please tell us how that gives Schumer a free pass to threaten Supreme Court Justices." You replied with: "Perhaps ... what threat though?🤷‍♂️ Talk about making something out of nothing. Isn’t that something you just shrug off in life? They’re big boys they can handle themselves. Trump threatens woman over the internet while they are doing their duty and testifying 🤦‍♂️ is that better or worse intimidation? Did you call him out?" 1) Changing the subject to Trump is a typical dodge, used by people that either do not know what they are talking about, or are unwilling to admit that they are wrong. You qualify for both. The topic of this video is about Schumer threatening Supreme Court Justices. As eager as you are to change the topic to be about Trump, it is not about Trump. Try to stay focused. 2) For you to ask "what threat though?" is moronic. Yes, I am calling you a moron, because we are commenting on a video where Schumer threatens Supreme Court Justices, and you expect us to believe your comment rather than the video of Schumer making the threats. You might as well write "What does Schumer have to do with this? He is not in the video". That would be equally ridiculous of you to expect us to believe. Do you understand how utterly stupid you come across, when you ask "what threat" when commenting on a video that contains the threat; a video whose purpose is to put a spotlight on the threat, and you ask "what threat". Really. Take a breath and think about how incredibly stupid your are coming across. I do not normally call people stupid. But your assertion of no threat, in a video containing a threat, is the equivalent of holding a "call me stupid" sign.
    1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. Yes, it is smart to keep a supply of ventilators on hand. You do not want to wait for them, after you already need them. You certainly do not want to run out. But hoarding ventilators (same as people are hoarding toilet paper, sanitizer, etc) can result in suffering and deaths when that life-saving equipment is needed elsewhere. 1) The ventilators are not toys. They are built to medical standards. They are expensive, and they take huge resources to manufacture the parts, build the units, and test the units. 2) If and when a new outbreak of the virus shows up somewhere other than New York, will Cuomo ship his not-in-use stockpile to save the lives of non New York Americans? Will there be a red-tape delay to find that stockpile and get it shipped? It is not like the federal government can just snap their fingers and 10,000 more ventilators appear. 3) Tying up personnel to manufacture tens of thousands of ventilators, for a demand that is not present (only projected under worst case scenario), means that those people are not contributing their time and labor towards other immediate needs that are related to this crisis. Cuomo said nothing about an "apex" when he sounded the emergency alarm that New York needed tens of thousands of ventilators. It is only after he was questioned as to why so many ventilators are being stockpiled by him, and he still wants more, that he now qualifies that they are for the "apex". How is the President expected to manage the unimaginable demands on his office, when he cannot count on the people that are making the demands to be accurate or, at a minimum, be reasonable?
    1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. @3:03 "Why are you going to social media companies, and telling them that a story may be Russian disinformation, when you don't even quite know that yet." Once again, a conservative, inadvertently giving cover to the radical left. What do I mean? The question for Joe Concha is: Joe, do you really believe that the FBI Director was unsure of what Hunter had on his laptop, and whether or not it was Russian disinformation? Folks, of course Director Wray knew exactly what Hunter's laptop contained. Of course Director Wray knew that Hunter's laptop was not Russian disinformation. Of course Director Wray knew that his agency was colluding with facebook to swing the election. Of course Director Wray knew that his agency was not trying to curtail misinformation, but rather, his agency was actively spreading disinformation. Stop inadvertently defending people by way of implying that they did not know. Director Wray knew exactly what was on Hunter's laptop, and Director Wray knew exactly what his agency was doing with facebook. Director Wray, and all of the people involved with spreading that disinformation, and interfering with 2020 election... all of them should be prosecuted. Stop playing games with these people. They are not playing a game. They are ruthless people, seeking to gain power (enough is never enough for them), and the Constitution be damned (in their view). These people are not like the rest of us. They are smart, and they are evil. They have blatantly broken laws and committed high crimes that change election outcomes and endanger our freedoms. They are not clueless. They are not flying blind. They are not doing these things by mistake. So stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, as if they would have acted differently, if they had only known better. Folks, you know that Hunter's laptop is Hunter's laptop, and that it is not Russian disinformation. You always knew that. And we are expected to believe that the Director of the FBI does not know? It is absurd. These people should be charged with the serious laws that they intentionally violated.
    1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1