Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
And yet some individuals can only, and will only, equate the two candidates as "equally" abhorrant...
Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty are unable to comment.
So...yeah... I consider Clinton equally abhorrant to Cheeto Jesus.
Sorry, nobody bought that dead horse in 8 Congressional investigations. Nobody is buying it here.
You are sorely mistaken to believe I'm the only one here...
Oh, no doubt. I've seen some of the other "insightful" postings out there also clinging to the ever-expanding nothingness of a topic you constantly reference when trying to shore up the rationale behind your position. The fact that you're not alone in holding on to your pet dead horse simply proves P.T. Barnum's adage...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/26 20:48:00
whembly wrote: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty are unable to comment.
Still beating that dead horse, huh?
So...yeah... I consider Clinton equally abhorrant to Cheeto Jesus.
Being wrong is pretty much your best trick. Why stop now?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Oh, no doubt. I've seen some of the other "insightful" postings out there also clinging to the ever-expanding nothingness of a topic you constantly reference when trying to shore up the rationale behind your position. The fact that you're not alone in holding on to your pet dead horse simply proves P.T. Barnum's adage...
Right.
The Queen is perfect. Nothing more to see here...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/26 22:04:25
Oh, no doubt. I've seen some of the other "insightful" postings out there also clinging to the ever-expanding nothingness of a topic you constantly reference when trying to shore up the rationale behind your position. The fact that you're not alone in holding on to your pet dead horse simply proves P.T. Barnum's adage...
Right.
The Queen is perfect. Nothing more to see here...
Wow, didn't see that comment coming. Actually, I've seen it in various forms from you on this forum repeatedly...but then you repeatedly beat dead horses, so I shouldn't be surprised. You are as predictable as the Bears sucking. You consistently dredge out the same old lame duck argument and then when called on it, immediately run to the blanket statement for defense.
If belligerence is your style, at least keep it fresh and relevant. The Benghazi stuff is just pathetic.
It's nice to know that Clinton is regarded as 'equally abhorrent' to someone who could very easily be written into an eighties kid's movie as the villain. He stole from a charity to settle his own stupid lawsuits AND to buy portraits of himself. He once walled a Scottish couple's property in when they wouldn't sell it to him for his golf course, and then sent them the (inflated, according to the couple) bill.
Heck, with his answers to Scientific American and his figureheading the Republican platform, he could be the villain of an eighties kids' environmental movie. That's how unsubtle he is!
Oh, no doubt. I've seen some of the other "insightful" postings out there also clinging to the ever-expanding nothingness of a topic you constantly reference when trying to shore up the rationale behind your position. The fact that you're not alone in holding on to your pet dead horse simply proves P.T. Barnum's adage...
Right.
The Queen is perfect. Nothing more to see here...
Wow, didn't see that comment coming. Actually, I've seen it in various forms from you on this forum repeatedly...but then you repeatedly beat dead horses, so I shouldn't be surprised. You are as predictable as the Bears sucking. You consistently dredge out the same old lame duck argument and then when called on it, immediately run to the blanket statement for defense. If belligerence is your style, at least keep it fresh and relevant. The Benghazi stuff is just pathetic.
She lied to the families over their fething casket... because it was politically inconvenient in the height of the 2012 president elections.
That's the kind of person we're dealing with.
So, spare me your indignation that I'm beating the dead horse.
Spinner wrote: It's nice to know that Clinton is regarded as 'equally abhorrent' to someone who could very easily be written into an eighties kid's movie as the villain. He stole from a charity to settle his own stupid lawsuits AND to buy portraits of himself. He once walled a Scottish couple's property in when they wouldn't sell it to him for his golf course, and then sent them the (inflated, according to the couple) bill.
Heck, with his answers to Scientific American and his figureheading the Republican platform, he could be the villain of an eighties kids' environmental movie. That's how unsubtle he is!
Hey... I ain't going to defend Trump. He's scum.
Too bad there's TWO Democrats running for President.
I'm not trying to do the "Hillary is the mirror of Trump"... she's just bad for other reasons.
So, riddle me this bat man. Why is it no one brings up the Clinton's wealth?
They've been on government jobs for over 30 years... and their net worth north of $100 million dollars??
Oh, no doubt. I've seen some of the other "insightful" postings out there also clinging to the ever-expanding nothingness of a topic you constantly reference when trying to shore up the rationale behind your position. The fact that you're not alone in holding on to your pet dead horse simply proves P.T. Barnum's adage...
Right.
The Queen is perfect. Nothing more to see here...
Wow, didn't see that comment coming. Actually, I've seen it in various forms from you on this forum repeatedly...but then you repeatedly beat dead horses, so I shouldn't be surprised. You are as predictable as the Bears sucking. You consistently dredge out the same old lame duck argument and then when called on it, immediately run to the blanket statement for defense.
If belligerence is your style, at least keep it fresh and relevant. The Benghazi stuff is just pathetic.
She lied to the families over their fething casket... because it was politically inconvenient in the height of the 2012 president elections.
That's the kind of person we're dealing with.
So, spare me your indignation that I'm beating the dead horse.
OMG, the melodrama. Nobody is debating it's a tragedy, but you take it to Inquisitorial absurdity, even in the face of absolute facts that fly smack into your position, to the contrary. You cling to Benghazi like Linus and his blanket after even the GOP witch hunters, who began this smear campaign, come out, after 8 Congressional hearings on the matter...let me just say that again for effect, 8 CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS...and find HRC not guilty of any wrongdoing. What exactly is throwing you here? Is 8 not enough? Maybe 20 works for you? Hell, let's make a game show out of it. Ridiculous.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 00:27:31
Oh, no doubt. I've seen some of the other "insightful" postings out there also clinging to the ever-expanding nothingness of a topic you constantly reference when trying to shore up the rationale behind your position. The fact that you're not alone in holding on to your pet dead horse simply proves P.T. Barnum's adage...
Right.
The Queen is perfect. Nothing more to see here...
Wow, didn't see that comment coming. Actually, I've seen it in various forms from you on this forum repeatedly...but then you repeatedly beat dead horses, so I shouldn't be surprised. You are as predictable as the Bears sucking. You consistently dredge out the same old lame duck argument and then when called on it, immediately run to the blanket statement for defense. If belligerence is your style, at least keep it fresh and relevant. The Benghazi stuff is just pathetic.
She lied to the families over their fething casket... because it was politically inconvenient in the height of the 2012 president elections.
That's the kind of person we're dealing with.
So, spare me your indignation that I'm beating the dead horse.
OMG, the melodrama. Nobody is debating it's a tragedy, but you take it to Inquisitorial absurdity, even in the face of absolute facts, that fly smack into your position, to the contrary. You cling to Benghazi like Linus and his blanket after even the GOP witch hunters, who began this smear campaign, come out, after 8 Congressional hearings on the matter...let me just say that again for effect, 8 CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS...and find HRC not guilty of any wrongdoing. What exactly is throwing you here? Is 8 not enough? Maybe 20 works for you? Hell, let's make a game show out of it. Ridiculous.
I don't care about the Congressional hearing at the moment. That's not pertinent to this discussion.
We're talking about what kind of person HIllary Clinton is...
... Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.
That same evening, Mrs. Clinton spoke on the phone with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, around 8 p.m. The notes from that conversation, in a State Department email, describe her as saying: “We have asked for the Libyan government to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” Ansar al Sharia is al Qaeda’s affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula. So several hours into the attack, Mrs. Clinton already believed that al Qaeda was attacking U.S. facilities.
The next afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. The notes from it are absolutely damning. The secretary of state tells him: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” And yet Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama for days and days continued to spin the video lie. ...
She knew. That is an irrefutable fact.
And yet, lied over the caskets of the fallen.
feth her. feth everyone involved to spin this tragedy away.
And, while I'm at it... feth Cheeto Jesus too.
EDIT: Anyhoo... debates coming up.
Here's my debate prep!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 00:44:20
No. It's been repeatedly and objectively proven that any moral standard where Clinton is found lacking, Trump is found to be worse. But again, how would you know if you were wrong?
Well, Trump spend 2 minutes talking about how bad it is and that he will put money in workers hands by lowering corporate taxes. This should be an interesting 90 minutes.
d-usa wrote: Next debate to be hosted by Dakka Dakka MOD staff!
10 minutes in, and man I wish.
Clinton explaining plan while Trump screams at her
mod: it's time to move on Clinton keeps talking calmly
mod: no serious we have to move on Clinton: anyway, if you look on my website, I have a plan
mod: cmon guys
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 01:27:12
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
