Posted on 08/17/2015 10:04:08 AM PDT by rickmichaels
He likes beautiful women. That is hardly news to anyone.
So if Di had hooked up with Trump, she would still be alive today, and potentially the new First Lady. Well, he gave it a shot. Good for him.
What I notice in an older guy is his eyes. Intelligent, curious, having that aura of humor, confidence and of enjoying life. Look just at Trump's eyes. What do you see?
An unattractive guy. I’ve always found him to be so.
she hadn't gotten mixed up with those Islamists.
Here’s a nice little article on what makes Trump tick.
http://www.islandconnections.com/edit/trump.htm
I’ve sent buckets of flowers. Send the SWAT teams.
The Donald marry Princess Di? But she’s a foreigner.
Well finally - here it is. The story that will kill Trump’s chances. Sarc/
Well, he was certainly better that Dodi who managed to get her killed with his drunken driver.
He should have bought her a tiara shaped like a steering wheel.
stupid hit piece
Must admit The Donald has good taste in ladies.
Lying obsessive that you are, for some reason you just can't drop the fact that I brought up Trump's vile attack on Michelle Malkin, who is the "conservative Christian lady" in question. Not Megyn Kelly. You're still attempting to dishonestly misrepresent Megyn Kelly as the object of my statement...from a conversation that took place over a week ago.
I had forgotten all about it, but you...wow, you're fixated.
If you weren't a liar, you would have posted a link to the thread. But you didn't. You selectively copied and pasted a bit of my post #24 from that thread in your pathetic, really bizarre quest. So allow me to fix that.
Here's the thread:
And here is the text from the post that makes clear the subject was Malkin---not your snippet that can be misrepresented:
"You didn’t answer the question, liberal.
Why do you defend such treatment of a conservative Christian lady?
How do you justify it? What’s your reasoning?
Let’s hear it.
Nah, nothing will be forthcoming. You know you can’t defend it. But you operate on base, low emotion-—as seen by your yelling, your “LMFAO” and “STFU” and your clusters of exclamation points. You’re about as out of control as your cult figure, Trump.
And that is the reason, isn’t it, that you refuse to address the sleazebag’s treatment of Michelle Malkin. Your tin god did it, so it’s okay. That’s the reasoning of a 2008 Obamabot.
Now, judging from the way you followed me from thread to thread after that exchange, I expect you will respond to this post with three or four posts filled with "LMFAOs" and "STFUs", but that will just have to be. I need to go to the grocery store and I don't have time for your mess.
I apologize to the thread for the hijack created by your trollery, but when I saw you posting that again, I knew what you were up to and decided to draw you out.
Now please, for the love of God, and for yourself, get help.
“LOL, took the bait, I see. Just walked right into it.”
KEEP ‘EM COMING!
I’m STILL LMFAO at this leftist FReak hater.
My FReak stalker pretends to care about me while obsessing over my every word.
Its spiteful posting history is here in all its glory for the world to see:
Jackie’s kids were special.
They could kiss their Onassis.
From the stupidity of your repy I am guessing you are a younger freeper (or at least very immature...)
For some of us older crowd the name JFK means the one that got shot in Dalls. I remember the day he was shot, as we were sent home from school and had the rest of the3 week off.
CatherineofAragon is a self-avowed stalker, baiter, and troublemaker:
LOL, took the bait, I see. Just walked right into it.
Lying obsessive that you are, for some reason you just can’t drop the fact that I brought up Trump’s vile attack on Michelle Malkin, who is the “conservative Christian lady” in question. Not Megyn Kelly. You’re still attempting to dishonestly misrepresent Megyn Kelly as the object of my statement...from a conversation that took place over a week ago.
I had forgotten all about it, but you...wow, you’re fixated.
If you weren’t a liar, you would have posted a link to the thread. But you didn’t. You selectively copied and pasted a bit of my post #24 from that thread in your pathetic, really bizarre quest. So allow me to fix that.
Here’s the thread:
#24
And here is the text from the post that makes clear the subject was Malkin-—not your snippet that can be misrepresented:
“You didn’t answer the question, liberal.
Why do you defend such treatment of a conservative Christian lady?
How do you justify it? What’s your reasoning?
Let’s hear it.
Nah, nothing will be forthcoming. You know you can’t defend it. But you operate on base, low emotion-—as seen by your yelling, your “LMFAO” and “STFU” and your clusters of exclamation points. You’re about as out of control as your cult figure, Trump.
And that is the reason, isn’t it, that you refuse to address the sleazebag’s treatment of Michelle Malkin. Your tin god did it, so it’s okay. That’s the reasoning of a 2008 Obamabot.
Now, judging from the way you followed me from thread to thread after that exchange, I expect you will respond to this post with three or four posts filled with “LMFAOs” and “STFUs”, but that will just have to be. I need to go to the grocery store and I don’t have time for your mess.
I apologize to the thread for the hijack created by your trollery, but when I saw you posting that again, I knew what you were up to and decided to draw you out.
Now please, for the love of God, and for yourself, get help.
Its posting history:
The British Invasion - with no bugs. Awaiting the copy of Argosy, Screen Gems, True Defective,the brew and the kippers. Save for Friday night. Had no concept that elephants had trunks this length.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.