Dana Loesch Answers Jim Acosta's and AllahPundit's Whining About Rowdy Partisan Heckling of People the Crowd Doesn't Like

You should have seen your network�s townhall that I attended. https://t.co/0b0xuEy6lg — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 1, 2018





Some more stuff found on Twitter:

And I know this is gonna shock you, but AllahPundit supports FaceBook's deplatforming agenda.

#MuhEternalPrinciples and all.

By the way, AllahPundit seems to be rather keen on a couple of cherished conspiracy theories promulgated by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, doesn't he?

Regarding the claim that Trump is obstructing justice by criticizing Mueller:

When Bill Clinton and his staff did it to Ken Starr, the press said it was fighting back. When Donald Trump and his staff does it to Bob Mueller, the press says it�s obstruction. That�s the difference. https://t.co/tw9nF7z8ob — Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) August 1, 2018

To Fleischer's point: New York Times headline in March 1998 - "White House's All-Out Attack on Starr Is Paying Off, With His Help" - https://t.co/UasKYKzU8O https://t.co/V1FpacTQgN — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) August 1, 2018 �One White House official was blunt about the strategy, calling the coordinated hostilities ''part of our continuing campaign to destroy Ken Starr.'' From the NYT 1998. https://t.co/LFbTADIwKi — Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) August 1, 2018

#MuhPrinciples.

Trump tweeted the point that Mollie Hemingway has been making for a year, but which Marc Thiessen apparently picked up on: If it's "collusion" for Don Trump Jr. to have a meeting anticipating dirt on Hillary from Russia, why is not also collusion for Hillary to solicit dirt from high-ranking Kremlin officials -- as Steele's dossier called them -- about Trump?

�We already have a smoking gun about a campaign getting dirt on their opponent, it was Hillary Clinton. How is it OK for Hillary Clinton to proactively seek dirt from the Russians but the Trump campaign met at the Russians request and that is bad?� Marc Thiessen, Washington Post — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018





They never answer this question. I saw Mollie Hemingway make the point to Senorita Hayes.

(Steven Hayes is now having a well-earned mid-life crisis in Spain for a year -- or uno ano, as they might dicer, so I like to think of him as Senorita Hayes, walking up and down the playa in ratty cargo pants, thinkin' about finally writin' that novel.*)

Senorita Hayes did not answer the point: He merely scoffed, as if the answer were so obvious it did not need to be formulated into human words.

People do this when they actually do not have an answer at all and want to imply that they they have a Great Answer, such a Great Answer, a huge answer that it'll make your head spin.

They demonstrate this intellectual mastery by making an animal noise of blowing air through their noses. Like a cow in the middle of chewing a tough divot of grass.

So, just to be clear about this, Senorita Hayes and other cucks: I do not know the answer which you imply is so obvious as to need no articulation beyond making deer signalling noises through your perpetually-upturned snouts.

So, as a favor to the Slow Kids in the back of the class: Would you Geniuses mind putting the distinction into human words?

I mean you're all so smart and such craftsmen of Mindthoughts it should not be but a trifle to you. After all, the answer is so obvious it doesn't need to be said. I trust then that this undertaking will take you scarcely more time than hooting like an offended baboon.

Failure to finally answer the point will prove the case that you have no answer at all.

Use Your Human Words, self-claimed "Elite." You claim to be elite writers and thinkers; how about demonstrating a bit of that for once, just to prove that you're capable of it?



* I don't know much Spanish. These are my best guesses/fuzzy memories.