Fat old moose announces she's running for President

POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Monday, October 30, 2023 23:56
VIEWED: 9823
PAGE 1 of 1

WHOZIT

Monday, April 13, 2015 2:48 AM

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-announces-presid
ent-bid-786815

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 13, 2015 3:55 AM

No need to insult moose like that.

WISHIMAY

Monday, April 13, 2015 4:05 AM

And it starts.

God, I really fucking hate humans.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 13, 2015 4:19 AM

ELVISCHRIST

Monday, April 13, 2015 4:56 AM

So Palin's in?

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, April 13, 2015 5:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

LOL!!

BTW, what's Billocutus gonna do all day in the White House ... assimilate interns into his collective?

1KIKI

Monday, April 13, 2015 6:21 AM

Wish

those humans aren't the whole species

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

THGRRI

Monday, April 13, 2015 7:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

BTW, what's Billocutus gonna do all day in the White House ... assimilate interns into his collective?

Something a little more worth while than you did with your life I sure.

WISHIMAY

Monday, April 13, 2015 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wish

those humans aren't the whole species

Are you still bothering to count percentages??

Between the people who leave their guns out for kids to play with
The people who use non sexual beings for their own sickness
The people who think "THEIR" dog could NEVER hurt anyone and esp. the ones who complain that "THEIR" precious is being picked on for doing what a dog does naturally
The people who do drugs while pregnant
The people who smoke or drink while kids are in the car
The people who murder a kid over stupid shit like a video game
The religiously brainwashed who can't go a minute without saying the word "God" or think that ANY SINGLE THING WILL EVER GET BETTER IF YOU BELIEVE IN AN INVISIBLE SKY NOTHINGNESS!!! And you can't say anything to, because they simply do not possess the capabilities to even have a discussion on the subject without getting violent
Cops that shoot people in the back, or beat people up for being annoying
Guys like the asshole on my bus as a kid that was five years older and used to throw marbles at my head. For NO DAMN REASON other than to be an ASS.
People like my mother that tried to "spin" every crappy thing that happened when they got divorced as a positive to make herself look better and then dumped me off and moved to the other end of the country and could give a shit less about her grandkids
My aunt's kid that tried to molest MY KID AND ANOTHER GIRL and then she just BLEW IT OFF.
My brother who used to beat the *SHIT* out of me the second my parents walked out the door. And THANKS to Hollywood for that "phone books don't leave any bruises" tip.
Doctors that blow me off because I'm overweight, even though NONE of them EVER tried to figure out why FOR ONE SINGLE SECOND.
Emotional deadheads that call people "WHINERS" when they don't have even a speck of a clue.
Men that date women and treat her kids like CRAP, or vice versa.
People that kill things so they can take smiling pictures or sick trophies with animals that WILL BE ABSOLUTELY EXTINCT VERY SOON.
People that sleep with anything that comes their way just to have ONE MORE gov't check baby
People who smile to your face and then you catch them saying awful shit about you when your back is turned
People who flog kids over nothing and then pat themselves on the back for their "parenting"
Tiger moms
Anyone who has ever participated in the "Quiverful movement"
Teachers that are so fucking willfully ignorant they could easily pass for Kindergarteners
People who use abortion as a routine form of birth control
Squatters
Rapists
People who sit around on the internet debating "Repub" vs "Democrat" that can't see that both parties are equally useless and are actually being part of the problem BECAUSE THEY JUST CAN'T EVER GROW UP...
People who sleep with other people knowing they have a nasty disease
Anyone that steals anything over five bucks from anyone else when they didn't need to
People that don't plead guilty that totally are

Tell me who is left after that? 'Cause I'd LOVE to know....

1KIKI

Monday, April 13, 2015 8:43 AM

Not me and the people I know???

And I'm guessing not you either?

That's a start.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

WISHIMAY

Monday, April 13, 2015 8:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Not me and the people I know???

See, that's another thing Firefly absolutely got right. You can't know a man until you hold him over a volcano.

No offence meant, but I'd have no way to know that. I've met so many people who I thought were pretty decent and then one day "I gave a guy herpes so we could bond over it" or "I had four kids I walked out on" or any other number of things that are unfathomable to me. People really do scare the crap outta me!

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 13, 2015 8:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

BTW, what's Billocutus gonna do all day in the White House ... assimilate interns into his collective?

Something a little more worth while than you did with your life I sure.

1. That's not my quote . Jongs posted that. Get it right.

2. If you count cheating on your wife with a girl just a couple yrs older than your daughter, then yes, Bill wins.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Monday, April 13, 2015 9:07 AM

Wish

That's true. OTOH you list is pretty specific. It'd be pretty easy to avoid THOSE things. But if you're looking for people who haven't done ANYthing stupid or mean - well, nobody's perfect.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

WISHIMAY

Monday, April 13, 2015 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wish

That's true. OTOH you list is pretty specific. It'd be pretty easy to avoid THOSE things. But if you're looking for people who haven't done ANYthing stupid or mean - well, nobody's perfect.

Well, since I believe perfection is just a made up word, an illusion, I'd have to agree.

I've just been looking for decent. So far, pretty much striking out there.

And yeah, let's add Bill Clinton to the list. Total sleezebag.

1KIKI

Monday, April 13, 2015 9:15 AM

2. If you count cheating on your wife with a girl just a couple yrs older than your daughter, then yes, Bill wins.

Monica Lewinsky was 22 years old, a free adult in any state in the USofA and fully capable of making her own choices. Unless you want to make her choices for her, put her in a burqa, and lock her in the house unless accompanied by a husband or male relative.

Do you?

BTW, at the time Chelsea was 15. That's a 7 year difference, not 'a couple' of years, which, in normal English, means two. But hey who's counting? Because apparently - NOT YOU!

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Monday, April 13, 2015 9:23 AM

"let's add Bill Clinton to the list. Total sleezebag."

Fortunately, my only relationship with him was that he was the president of my country. So his personal failings aren't my concern. But the economy was doing really well. I can't sayt how long that would have lasted under his policies, but it was a hell of a lot better than dumbya.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

WISHIMAY

Monday, April 13, 2015 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

... but it was a hell of a lot better than dumbya.

Do you just not understand that every argument you could possibly make in support of/in defense of ANY CANDIDATE has already been made and that you are unlikely to ever change a mind already made up?? No offence meant again, but I doubt you or I or 99.9 percent of the people in this or any other country could EVER fully understand the economy or a presidents true effects on it, so supporting or denigrating EITHER side is a pointless, fruitless activity. I fail to see any logic here.

1KIKI

Monday, April 13, 2015 9:53 AM

Well, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, but the economy, the unemployment rate and the federal budget were all objectively doing better with Bill than dumbya. Not logic, objective fact.

I can see it could have come to a close even if Bill had stayed in office another term and kept the same policies. Glass–Steagall Legislation was repealed during his term, setting the stage for wild bank-driven speculation and the eventual Great (and global) Recession in 2007. He pushed for NAFTA which became law in 1993 greasing the skids for manufacturing flight to China. And the dotcom bubble died an expected death in 2000. And in fact there was more, and any or all of these could have caused the economy to at least stumble.

But when you do what dumbya did which was start two wars and reduce taxes then borrow heavily to make up the difference, the outcome is as inevitable as gravity.

I'm not sure Bill was smart enough to avoid all problems, but dumbya was stupid enough to directly cause them.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, April 13, 2015 1:39 PM

Oh my god, a woman who is aging normally. Someone call the fire department, the republicans, Joan Rivers, that cat looking woman, Rush Bargearse. Someone DO SOMETHING PLEASE.

Or you can look at this.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2015/apr/12/hillary-clinton
-life-career-in-pictures

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

BTW, what's Billocutus gonna do all day in the White House ... assimilate interns into his collective?

1. That's not my quote . Jongs posted that. Get it right.

Why you little snitch!

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Something a little more worth while than you did with your life I sure.

"I sure"? Yeah, you sure fucking idiot.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
BTW, what's Billocutus gonna do all day in the White House ... assimilate interns into his collective?

Something a little more worth while than you did with your life I sure.

1. That's not my quote . Jongs posted that. Get it right.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

You think he works for the creative liberal truth department for NBC, when he reported the Treyvon Martin lie, or for Dan Blather's fabrications?

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:33 AM

Saturday Night Live absolutely destroyed her. Hysterical!

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Monica Lewinsky was 22 years old, a free adult in any state in the USofA and fully capable of making her own choices. Unless you want to make her choices for her, put her in a burqa, and lock her in the house unless accompanied by a husband or male relative.

Do you?

Nice straw man ya got there. You think it was cool for her to CHOOSE to have sexual relations w/ a married man ? What if some girl ( assuming you were ever married ) 1/2 your age CHOSE to sleep w/ your husband, or wife ? You're cool w/ that ?

Quote:

BTW, at the time Chelsea was 15. That's a 7 year difference, not 'a couple' of years, which, in normal English, means two. But hey who's counting? Because apparently - NOT YOU!

I was off by a few years. Yep. Bill was 2x her age, and Monica could have very well been Chelsea's baby sitter, a few years prior.

It's really funny to see you scurry, even today to defend the indefensible.

THGRRI

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:51 AM

"The Bush family’s dealings illustrate some of the ways this S&L loot was extracted. In some loan transactions, money was simply siphoned out fraudulently to outsiders under lucrative arrangements with bank directors; Neil Bush’s record illustrates these type of transactions. In other instances, as exemplified by Jeb’s S&L dealings, loans were made for speculative investments or ventures without attempts to secure repayment if they were not profitable. Political connections often helped protect S&L misconduct;9 in the Bush’s case, George senior’s record demonstrated laxity toward the perpetrators, several of whom were in his own social circles."

http://campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

THGRRI

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
"The Bush family’s dealings illustrate some of the ways this S&L loot was extracted. In some loan transactions, money was simply siphoned out fraudulently to outsiders under lucrative arrangements with bank directors; Neil Bush’s record illustrates these type of transactions. In other instances, as exemplified by Jeb’s S&L dealings, loans were made for speculative investments or ventures without attempts to secure repayment if they were not profitable. Political connections often helped protect S&L misconduct;9 in the Bush’s case, George senior’s record demonstrated laxity toward the perpetrators, several of whom were in his own social circles."

"BACKGROUND ON THE S&L BAILOUT. The failure of hundreds of U.S. Savings and Loans during the 1980s, as detailed in such sources as Stephen Pizzo’s Inside Job1 and Pete Brewton’s Untold Story,2 cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $500 billion."

http://campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

THGRRI

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:53 AM

YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT MUCH AT ALL DO YA?

"The Bush family’s dealings illustrate some of the ways this S&L loot was extracted. In some loan transactions, money was simply siphoned out fraudulently to outsiders under lucrative arrangements with bank directors; Neil Bush’s record illustrates these type of transactions. In other instances, as exemplified by Jeb’s S&L dealings, loans were made for speculative investments or ventures without attempts to secure repayment if they were not profitable. Political connections often helped protect S&L misconduct;9 in the Bush’s case, George senior’s record demonstrated laxity toward the perpetrators, several of whom were in his own social circles."

"BACKGROUND ON THE S&L BAILOUT. The failure of hundreds of U.S. Savings and Loans during the 1980s, as detailed in such sources as Stephen Pizzo’s Inside Job1 and Pete Brewton’s Untold Story,2 cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $500 billion."

http://campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 6:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT MUCH AT ALL DO YA?

"The Bush family’s dealings illustrate some of the ways this S&L loot was extracted. In some loan transactions, money was simply siphoned out fraudulently to outsiders under lucrative arrangements with bank directors; Neil Bush’s record illustrates these type of transactions. In other instances, as exemplified by Jeb’s S&L dealings, loans were made for speculative investments or ventures without attempts to secure repayment if they were not profitable. Political connections often helped protect S&L misconduct;9 in the Bush’s case, George senior’s record demonstrated laxity toward the perpetrators, several of whom were in his own social circles."

"BACKGROUND ON THE S&L BAILOUT. The failure of hundreds of U.S. Savings and Loans during the 1980s, as detailed in such sources as Stephen Pizzo’s Inside Job1 and Pete Brewton’s Untold Story,2 cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $500 billion."

http://campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

3 posts in a row of the same thing?
Gee, you gotta unbunch your panties.

1KIKI

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:02 AM

rappy

Both Monica and Bill were adults, free to choose. And Monica wasn't a child, just 'a couple' of years older than Chelsea. I'm so sorry that you can't either post or address facts. And neither your opinion of their choices nor mine doesn't negate their freedom to make them. I'm not defending their choices, I'm defending their freedom to make them.

How about you. Should they have that freedom? Or DO want you to be an Ayatollah?

Do you?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:23 AM

Bill had the freedom to perjure himself to a Grand Jury too, and look what it got him.

Defending bad choices is pretty damn weak. At no time was that even an issue I brought up. You did. Weak and lame.

But since we're talking about you, the terms apply.

1KIKI

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:55 AM

Defending bad choices is pretty damn weak. At no time was that even an issue I brought up. You did. Weak and lame.

Nice to see you backtracking from your own posts. You didn't call it 'weak'. What was it you said? INDEFENSIBLE ... as in It's really funny to see you scurry, even today to defend the INDEFENSIBLE.

Now, correct me if my English is wrong, but doesn't INDEFENSIBLE mean there's NO defense? Not even a defense in the interests of freedom? So, doesn't that mean you think it should be completely forbidden? On account of, yanno, it being INDEFENSIBLE?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:04 AM

Infidelity is indefensible. Sounds to me like you're for it. Maybe you did it yourself ?

At no time was it about their FREEDOM to cheat, but their choice to do so. You're constructing straw man simply to find reasons to fight.

1KIKI

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:08 AM

Infidelity is indefensible.

Sounds like this should go into rappy's New Testament of Sharia.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Infidelity is indefensible.

Sounds like this should go into rappy's New Testament of Sharia.

you're the one bringing religion into this. And why are you picking on Muslims ? Sharia ? Ayatollah ?

Seems you're going to extremes here...

So 1kiki.. have you ever cheated on your spouse ? Or have they cheated on you ?

1KIKI

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:20 AM

Well, if INDEFENSIBLE (your word) infidelity isn't a 'moral' issue, then what's your problem with it?

Also, what do Bill and Monica have to do with me? I'm not married to either of them.

And finally, on the 'infidelity' topic, I was wondering - is it only INDEFENSIBLE for democrats? Or is it also INDEFENSIBLE for republicans?

Rep. Henry Hyde Broke up a family during his seven year adulterous affair!
Mike Bowers Cheated on his wife for FIFTEEN YEARS!
George Bush Linda Tripp says had he an affair with a woman named "Jennifer"
Newt Gingrich Dumped his ex-wife while she was in a hospital bed suffering from cancer....
Bob Dole Cheated on his first wife with his current wife, Elizabeth Dole.
Former Rep. Bob Dornan Reported to have cheated on and beaten his wife.
John Linder Has a wandering eye for his female staff members.
Ronald Reagan Dumped Jane Wyman by cheating on her with several Hollywood starlets
William Cohen Dumped his white wife for a new black one.
Guy Millner Has been married three times, partly because he has sex with women he isn't married to....
Rush Limbaugh Fat as he may be, he cheated on two of his three wives...
Mitch Skandalakis Hired hookers from his Las Vegas hotel room!
Michael Deaver Was so drunk he doesn't remember hiring hookers...
John Warner Dumped his wife for Elizabeth Taylor...
Bill Randall A Florida Congressional candidate and minister, he fathered an illegitimate child during his affair!
Bill McCartney Promise Keepers founder who didn't keep his Promise to his wife and then lied about it for 20 years!
Rep. Dan Burton Had at least six adulterous affairs, and fathered a bastard son who, today, he ignores!!
Rep. Bob Bar Cheated on all three of his wives - and coerced one into having an abortion - then lied about it!
Rudolph Giuliani Boffs his assistant in Gracie Mansion while his wife stays home with the kids!
Sen. Strom Thurmond Cheated on his fourth wife at age 88!!
Gilbert Davis Paula Jones' attorney, who allowed himself to be videotaped DrUnK during his adultery!
Bob Packwood Drank huge amounts of hard liquor and then tongue-kissed his female staffers against their will!
Gov. Kirk Fordice Got so hopped up by his mistress that he crashed his Jeep Cherokee and got himself hurt!
Beverly Russell The Christian Coalition coordinator who molested his stepdaughter Susan Smith, who later killed her own kids.
Marv Albert Calls himself a Republican, bites his longtime mistresses, and has sex with her while wearing women's panties!

So, moving on to you - are you just another stupid right-wing hypocrite who can't keep your mindless programmed hatreds from biting each other?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:04 PM

Touched a nerve, I see.

LOL

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

THGRRI

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT MUCH AT ALL DO YA?

"The Bush family’s dealings illustrate some of the ways this S&L loot was extracted. In some loan transactions, money was simply siphoned out fraudulently to outsiders under lucrative arrangements with bank directors; Neil Bush’s record illustrates these type of transactions. In other instances, as exemplified by Jeb’s S&L dealings, loans were made for speculative investments or ventures without attempts to secure repayment if they were not profitable. Political connections often helped protect S&L misconduct;9 in the Bush’s case, George senior’s record demonstrated laxity toward the perpetrators, several of whom were in his own social circles."

"BACKGROUND ON THE S&L BAILOUT. The failure of hundreds of U.S. Savings and Loans during the 1980s, as detailed in such sources as Stephen Pizzo’s Inside Job1 and Pete Brewton’s Untold Story,2 cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $500 billion."

http://campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

THGRRI

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:51 PM

Not really. That was not something I did or intended to do. I can't explain it nor do I care. The point of the post still stands so I posted it again. You guys are morons who don't have a clue about what you speak.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 5:55 PM

Off topic & pointlessly so, Thug

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THUGRRY:

I'm gay and a moron who don't have a clue about what I speak.

That's better!

1KIKI

Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:21 AM

Touched a nerve, I see.

LOL

Failed to answer the questions and instead resorted to ad hominems - AGAIN! - I see. Surely you're more capable than that!

LOL

So, to get the discussion going -

Well, if INDEFENSIBLE (your word) infidelity isn't a 'moral' issue, then what's your problem with it?

Also, what do Bill and Monica have to do with me? I'm not married to either of them.

And finally, on the 'infidelity' topic, I was wondering - is it only INDEFENSIBLE for democrats? Or is it also INDEFENSIBLE for republicans?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 19, 2015 5:10 AM

Oh, well RAPPY and I have a special relationship over the word "supersede", and how it relates to UN Resolutions. He'll NEVER admit to the definition of that word, and I doubt he'll admit to the definition of "indefensible" either. Sigh. He's a knucklehead like that.

AFA Hillary is concerned, I won't vote for her, even if her opponent is the devil incarnate. It has nothing to with her being fat, old, a moose, a democrat, a "socialist" (ha!) or the wife of former President, sleezebag Bill Clinton.

It's because she's evil.

The real scandal about Benghazi wasn't all of the things the Democrats and Republicans yapped about, the REAL scandal was that the CIA ... with the assistance of (Hillary's) State Department, was smuggling arms from Libya to Syria. And you have to realize that Victoria ("Fuck the EU") Nuland ... the one who worked hard to overthrow the Ukraine government and who picked the successor ... was Hillary's (State Department) employee. State Department is still filled with neocons of the Brzezinski mold (think "total world domination at any cost") So, like Bush, she was either completely clueless about what her underlings were doing, or she was complicit in the action.

Stupid?

Complicit?

What a choice!

There's a reason why Hillary used a private email server for her job as head of the State Department, and it wasn't just a reflexive desire for privacy. As far as being a warmonger, she's worse than Obama.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:22 AM

Sig, you need to take it up w/ Neal Boortz, who is a lawyer and whine to him.

I personally don't give a flying fornication over the matter. Or under it.

WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?

Well, the answer to that question is clear. We have to go over this time after time because there are certain people out there, we'll call them "liberals," who are still in a state of despair and shock over President Bush's successful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Day after day we read newS stories, columns and various opinion pieces from the Molly Ivins brigade trumpeting Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush ought to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.

OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

It's just that easy. Any questions?

http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2003/may/07/2003-05-07/

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:45 AM

OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

I have to say your 'facts' are highly ... hmmm ... untrue.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 19, 2015 12:51 PM

Quote:
]Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sig, you need to take it up w/ Neal Boortz, who is a lawyer and whine to him.

Oooh, a LAWYER! A LAWYER! Well, I think Hans Blix could give Neal Boor a run for his money, since Blix is not only a lawyer himself, but also a diplomat AND the head of the Iraq UNMOVIC inspection team, and probably knows a fuckuvalotmore than Boor about the topic of Iraq WMD.

Quote:
I personally don't give a flying fornication over the matter. Or under it.

And then you post...

Quote:
WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?

Well, the answer to that question is clear. We have to go over this time after time because there are certain people out there, we'll call them "liberals," who are still in a state of despair and shock over President Bush's successful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Day after day we read newS stories, columns and various opinion pieces from the Molly Ivins brigade trumpeting Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush ought to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.

OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

It's just that easy. Any questions?

Yes, just one question- How did you manage to get so derailed from reality on this topic?

Yanno, I could do a point-by-point ... in fact, have done so quite a number of times already .... but facts simply don't sway your from your beliefs. So here's your one point, which is relevant to the word "supersede":

Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.

Yanno, I read 1441. Yes, it "mentions" Resolution 678 (which really did authorize use of force) but nowhere does R1441 authorize use of force, nor does it reactivate previous UN Resolutions. That's because UN Resolutions (wait for it ...) ... supersede (i.e. replace) each other. I quoted UN law on Resolutions, and how they are meant to supersede each other. I provided examples of Resolutions which DID authorize use of force, so that you could have examples of what such resolutions look like, and there is no way the R1441 can be mistaken for any of them. I quoted the relevant portions of R1441, after all the "Recalling" and "Deploring" and "Noting", the actual phrase of the decision, here:

Quote:
"Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under
relevant resolutions of the Council

I provided a link to the document, as I do here ...
http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

Now. I can't help it that you can't apparently either read or think, or absorb the relevant inform

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:09 PM

And now, back to "Why we shouldn't vote for Hillary".

In case it gets lost in the shuffle: Because she's a worse war-monger than Bush or Obama, and she's a bought-and-paid-for operative of the unimaginably wealthy. In that sense, she should be right up the right-wing's Republican alley. But they won't vote for her, so they miss their golden oppty.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 19, 2015 10:16 PM

Cisco Used Clinton Foundation To Cover-up Human Rights Abuse In China

Quote:
In her 2014 memoir “Hard Choices,” Clinton reiterated her support for human-rights advocates in China. She specifically criticized the Great Firewall, writing that after she made comments about the right to dissent in China in 2011, “censors went right to work erasing mentions of my message from the Internet.”

But the issue of Chinese repression — and Cisco’s role — was already known by then. In 2009, weeks after Clinton’s State Department had named Cisco a finalist for the secretary of state’s Awards for Corporate Excellence (ACE), a report from the Electronic Freedom Foundation noted “Cisco’s deep involvement” in building the Chinese government’s censorship system. The report pointed out that “Cisco engineers gave a presentation acknowledging the repressive uses for their technology.”

Daniel Wade, an attorney who represented Chinese dissidents in a lawsuit against Cisco, told IBTimes that “Cisco knew full well that its products were going to be used to suppress and facilitate the torture of democracy activists.”

“Crony capitalism has defined Clinton’s career, from her tenure on the board of Walmart, to the Wall Street execs whom she surrounded herself with at the State Department, to her allegiance to Cisco, even as it violated principles on which she staked her tenure,” said David Segal, executive director of the Internet freedom advocacy group Demand Progress.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-18/more-hillary-cronyism-reveale
d-cisco-used-clinton-foundation-cover-human-rights-abus

See, Republicans? Hillary is nestling cozily in the armpit of big business. She's right up your alley!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 19, 2015 11:41 PM

Sig - to the contrary, this should shine the light on the dirty little secret that it's not the GOP who is wedded to big business, but it's the Dems.

SIGNYM

Monday, April 20, 2015 12:03 AM

Quote:
Sig - to the contrary, this should shine the light on the dirty little secret that it's not the GOP who is wedded to big business, but it's the Dems. -RAPPY

Seriously? I could bring you quite a list of all the big businesses that the Republicans are chained to!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 20, 2015 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Sig - to the contrary, this should shine the light on the dirty little secret that it's not the GOP who is wedded to big business, but it's the Dems. -RAPPY

Seriously? I could bring you quite a list of all the big businesses that the Republicans are chained to!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

And I could do the same for the Dems , including Wall Street.

The myth that the GOP are for " big business " , the rich and the powerful , while the Dems are for the little guy, the poor and the great unwashed, is one of the bigger lies of our time.

1KIKI

Monday, April 20, 2015 12:47 AM

So, if the repubs are for big business - a fact you can't dispute with other facts - why are you for them? Is it because they're so bent on personal freedoms like gays getting married and women getting birth control, or the dismantlement of the surveillance state, or allowing people to freely join a union for mutual benefit? (That's irony - I feel I have to point that out with you.) Is it because they want to maintain clean drinking water, safe foods, and air that won't kill you when you breathe it? (This is more irony as well.) Is it because they have such a robust plan for medical care that will fix the problems of the old for-profit system? (This is yet more irony, since, as you know, they've failed to come up with that alternative they promised so many years ago.)

What is it about their agenda you like, if being pro-business isn't it?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 20, 2015 12:53 AM

When you start off mis-characterizing my views or the views of others, the desire to even attempt an honest exchange drops greatly. The laying out of false premises as a starting point gets us no where.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, April 20, 2015 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

When you start off mis-characterizing my views or the views of others, the desire to even attempt an honest exchange drops greatly. The laying out of false premises as a starting point gets us no where.

Wow! Figured that out all by yourself did ya? And only in a mere 10 years! It must be so frustrating and personally devastating for you not being able to communicate all friendly-like with the demented leftist psycho assholes here.

Oh sorry .... my bad. There I go calling them names they deserve again. I'll just never learn! "You're a better man than I am Gunga Din."

1KIKI

Monday, April 20, 2015 1:23 AM

I asked questions. There are question marks after my sentences. Maybe I should have made them some bright color so you couldn't miss them.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 20, 2015 1:29 AM

See ? It ends in a question mark !

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Monday, April 20, 2015 1:41 AM

And that makes it a question! VERY GOOD! And questions are looking for answers!

Got any?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 20, 2015 2:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
]Originally posted by AURaptor:
OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

I have to say your 'facts' are highly ... hmmm ... untrue.

Can you specify which one is? Or more than one?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 20, 2015 2:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
]Originally posted by AURaptor:
WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?

Well, the answer to that question is clear. We have to go over this time after time because there are certain people out there, we'll call them "liberals," who are still in a state of despair and shock over President Bush's successful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Day after day we read newS stories, columns and various opinion pieces from the Molly Ivins brigade trumpeting Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush ought to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.

OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

It's just that easy. Any questions?
Yes, just one question- How did you manage to get so derailed from reality on this topic?

Yanno, I could do a point-by-point ... in fact, have done so quite a number of times already ...

Can you provide a link to where you have done so?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 20, 2015 2:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Sig - to the contrary, this should shine the light on the dirty little secret that it's not the GOP who is wedded to big business, but it's the Dems. -RAPPY

Seriously? I could bring you quite a list of all the big businesses that the Republicans are chained to!

And I could do the same for the Dems , including Wall Street.

The myth that the GOP are for " big business " , the rich and the powerful , while the Dems are for the little guy, the poor and the great unwashed, is one of the bigger lies of our time.

Now you've stepped in it. They are gonna come get you now.

1KIKI

Monday, April 20, 2015 2:55 AM

So, if the repubs are for big business - a fact you can't dispute with other facts - why are you for them? Is it because they're so bent on personal freedoms like gays getting married and women getting birth control, or the dismantlement of the surveillance state, or allowing people to freely join a union for mutual benefit? (That's irony - I feel I have to point that out with you.) Is it because they want to maintain clean drinking water, safe foods, and air that won't kill you when you breathe it? (This is more irony as well.) Is it because they have such a robust plan for medical care that will fix the problems of the old for-profit system? (This is yet more irony, since, as you know, they've failed to come up with that alternative they promised so many years ago.)

What is it about their agenda you like, if being pro-business isn't it?

And those question marks make them questions! And questions are looking for answers!

Got any?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 20, 2015 3:43 AM

Some questions are more statements & lies than legitimate attempts to get answers.

" have you stopped beating your wife / kids ? "

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Monday, April 20, 2015 3:51 AM

What is it about their agenda you like, if being pro-business isn't it?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, April 20, 2015 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Wow! Figured that out all by yourself did ya? And only in a mere 10 years! It must be so frustrating and personally devastating for you not being able to communicate all friendly-like with the demented leftist psycho assholes here.

Oh sorry .... my bad. There I go calling them names they deserve again. I'll just never learn! "You're a better man than I am Gunga Din."

Rich from you, seeing as you are currently the number one demented arsehole in here with NOTHING to add but insults and vitriol. I can't remember the last time you did anything but snarl obscenities. Get a life old man, you are losing the plot.

Go ahead now, spit your usual hatred. I feel sorry for you.

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, April 20, 2015 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MagonsWHORE

Rich from you, seeing as you are currently the number one demented arsehole in here with NOTHING to add but insults and vitriol. I can't remember the last time you did anything but snarl obscenities. Get a life old man, you are losing the plot.

So glad to live down to your expectations.

1KIKI

Monday, April 20, 2015 5:10 AM

That's a real benefit of having a 'mommie dearest'. You don't have to try to live up to anything at all. You can let your 'lazy flag' fly, and you get to blame it all on someone else who ruined your life.

OTOH they say when you're young you're the person you were raised to be, but as you get older you're the person you were born to be. So, were you born to be a lazy, ill-tempered, irrelevant creature?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, April 20, 2015 6:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

So glad to live down to your expectations.

Yeah and you are a disappointment. I have been here long enough to remember when you could actually be civil and have a discussion. I wonder what happened.

Personally, I want to discuss issues with people who have different views, and there is a world between between getting hot under the collar and just being abusive for the sake of it. Seems like with some here, you have a different view you are a non person. Is that what the USA is like now? How sad.

Edit. BTW rather be labelled a whore than BE some sad old fool who gets s thrill out of abusing women on the Internet. Sad, sad, and pathetic.

MOOSE

Monday, April 20, 2015 6:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No need to insult moose like that.

Yeah!
WTF, Whozit?!?!

WHOZIT

Monday, April 20, 2015 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Moose:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No need to insult moose like that.

Yeah!
WTF, Whozit?!?!

Oops, sorry.

SIGNYM

Monday, April 20, 2015 12:57 PM

Quote:
Seriously? I could bring you quite a list of all the big businesses that the Republicans are chained to!-SIGNY

And I could do the same for the Dems , including Wall Street. The myth that the GOP are for " big business " , the rich and the powerful , while the Dems are for the little guy, the poor and the great unwashed, is one of the bigger lies of our time. - RAPPY

Nobody is saying that the Dems are for "the little guy", least of all me. There are more Dems than GOP who are for the little guy, but not the party overall.

So, since the Dems and GOP are almost equally bad, whyizzit that you're for Repubs? Because they stood up to failed Wall Street bankers and refused to bail them out? Because, as KIKI said, they're for clean air? Because they support personal freedom and a balanced budget? Is it because they're free of that old-time religion? (not, not, not, not, and not) Out of all of the Repubs, the only one who might be worth voting for is Rand Paul. The rest are as bad as Hillary.

So, what's your reasoning?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, April 20, 2015 4:25 PM

Right, and the ludicrous idea that dems are socialist? It's laughable.

SIGNYM

Monday, April 20, 2015 9:20 PM

Rightwingers here have no idea what "socialism" means. They think that anyone left of Genghis Khan is a socialist, when what most people REALLY are (pretty much throughout a vertical slice of society) are liberals who really want to keep capitalism in place- they just want a softer, fluffier capitalism because anything else would significantly deprive people, which might lead to real change. And (gasp!) we can't have THAT.

So liberals (which constitute the majority of the Democratic Party) are really just "kinder, gentler" capitalists ... yanno, the welfare recipients want their welfare, the middle class who feel guilty/afraid and want their continued middle class status, and the dolers-out-of-welfare want their high-powered elected positions and the wealth that goes along with status. Some capitalists even see this and agree with it, because even THEY have an interest in their continued position.

At some point, people really should look into the contradictions on which their economy and society are founded.

This wealth discrepancy which capitalists celebrate in one example. The reason why having a crap-ton of poor people is self-defeating is because YOU CAN'T SELL TO POOR PEOPLE. And if everyone is poor, making iPhones, who the hell is going to buy them?

To extend the example, most nations (with the exception of the USA, which gave up this idea long ago) think they're going to "achieve wealth" by becoming net exporting nations. But since EVERY nation can't be a net exporter ... that's math for ya! ... at best half or fewer of the contending nations will reach the status of "net exporter", and the remainder will simply be wage slaves on the world market, suffering from high unemployment and abysmal living standards.

Fortunately there are other options available.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

REAVERFAN

Monday, April 20, 2015 11:12 PM

The funny thing is that Hillary will walk, not run, right into the white house, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

She's gonna win. By a landslide. The teanderthals don't stand a chance.

STORYMARK

Monday, April 20, 2015 11:24 PM

Quote:
And finally, on the 'infidelity' topic, I was wondering - is it only INDEFENSIBLE for democrats? Or is it also INDEFENSIBLE for republicans?

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Touched a nerve, I see.

LOL

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

By asking you a question you don't have the balls to answer, why, yes, it seems she did.

As cowardly as ever, rappy.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”? Isaac Asimov

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Right, and the ludicrous idea that dems are socialist? It's laughable.

Sorry to break the news, but we are referring to America here. If you knew that, your denial must act as balm to assuage your guilt.
All of the Socialist Party members in Congress who are not elected under the Socialist Party are Elected as Democrats. None are elected as Republicans.
Of all the members of Congress, those who vote most in line with the Democrat party platform (most faithfully Democrat) are the Socialist party, with something like 98% voting record. The nearest Democrat is something like 70% in line with the Democrat platform.
Here in America, the Democrats are the Socialists, even if some of them don't bother with membership in the Party.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
The funny thing is that Hillary will walk, not run, right into the white house, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

She's gonna win. By a landslide. The teanderthals don't stand a chance.

Any bets that KPO doesn't bother including this in the predictions thread?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, if the repubs are for big business - a fact you can't dispute with other facts - why are you for them? Is it because they're so bent on personal freedoms like gays getting married and women getting birth control, or the dismantlement of the surveillance state, or allowing people to freely join a union for mutual benefit? (That's irony - I feel I have to point that out with you.) Is it because they want to maintain clean drinking water, safe foods, and air that won't kill you when you breathe it? (This is more irony as well.) Is it because they have such a robust plan for medical care that will fix the problems of the old for-profit system? (This is yet more irony, since, as you know, they've failed to come up with that alternative they promised so many years ago.)

What is it about their agenda you like, if being pro-business isn't it?

And those question marks make them questions! And questions are looking for answers!

Got any?

Often you focus your batshit crazy on one topic or so. But here you manage to recap your far-flung batshit crazy spectrum in one post. I do recall there is far more that you have kept in the closet for this, but here is a decent sampling.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rightwingers here have no idea what "socialism" means. They think

...which is why you cannot do your thoughtless battle with them.

When the Democrats self-identify as Socialist, why should I deny their honest claims?
When the Democrats are members of the Socialist Party, why should I deny them?
You may have heard from a famous Republican that people should be judged by their actions, their character (or lack of it). When the Democrats who form the platform for their Party clearly chose a subset of the Socialist Party which only the Socialists can vote for without losing their seats, why should we deny them their Socialist character or Socialist voting record?

You doth protest too much.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2015 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
The funny thing is that Hillary will walk, not run, right into the white house, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

She's gonna win. By a landslide. The teanderthals don't stand a chance.

She'll likely get primaried, if her health even allows her to see the convention.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, April 23, 2015 4:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
The funny thing is that Hillary will walk, not run, right into the white house, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

She's gonna win. By a landslide. The teanderthals don't stand a chance.

She'll likely get primaried, if her health even allows her to see the convention.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Maybe she'll be sleep deprived, and accept the nomination anyhow. Then she can spend the whole time til the general election continuing to campaign against the DNC candidate, and lying that she is the candidate, because she is sleep deprived.

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, October 30, 2023 11:56 PM

Heckler confronts Hillary Clinton over Biden’s ‘warmongering’ Oval Office speech

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/oct/25/heckler-confronts-hil
lary-clinton-over-bidens-warm/