Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[3rdnlng]

It certainly does; and quite frankly, it also proves you a liar. I quoted you.

 

Further, you don't get to choose the time table on which I critique your stupidity.

 

The only thing you get to control is if you act like a jackass or not. So far you've chosen to act like a jackass. If you don't like being called out for it, I suggest you stop.

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton most certainly is fair game, and her pre-emptive campaign of assigning negative gender identity to phrases like "out of touch" is laughable; however that's not what you've dome; and worse, you smart enough to know this, yet are apparently small enough that you won't cop to it and defend your asanine behavior.

 

Even more laughable is that you're comparing your openly derogatory hack-and-slash posting to caricature art.

 

/golfclap

 

 

 

 

No. Doing a better job with words would be a better way of conveying your feelings. You aren't stupid. You should try it.

You are one pompous ass. My disdain for Hillary is because of the person she is and not her sex. Your post denigrating Dante and myself made us out to be sexist and that is what I took exception to.

 

It would appear to me that you have some type of problem with women. You claim to be the smartest man in the room. Why don't you claim to be the smartest person in the room instead? By excluding women you must either consider yourself inferior to them and not able to make a similar claim if they were included, or you discount their intelligence as being equal to men. You called me a liar over my objection as to you characterizing me as sexist and expecting sex-specific derogatory language from me. You can think what you want but understand this: I wouldn't have made the claim that I didn't say anything sexist if I was a sexist. I'm well aware that our posts are saved and can be looked up easily. I don't need to wonder if I've ever said anything that goes against my beliefs. You on the other hand have some explaining to do about your "smartest man in the room" claim. Do you really look down on women that much or are you just afraid you don't measure up?

[TakeYouToTasker]

You are one pompous ass. My disdain for Hillary is because of the person she is and not her sex. Your post denigrating Dante and myself made us out to be sexist and that is what I took exception to.

 

It would appear to me that you have some type of problem with women. You claim to be the smartest man in the room. Why don't you claim to be the smartest person in the room instead? By excluding women you must either consider yourself inferior to them and not able to make a similar claim if they were included, or you discount their intelligence as being equal to men. You called me a liar over my objection as to you characterizing me as sexist and expecting sex-specific derogatory language from me. You can think what you want but understand this: I wouldn't have made the claim that I didn't say anything sexist if I was a sexist. I'm well aware that our posts are saved and can be looked up easily. I don't need to wonder if I've ever said anything that goes against my beliefs. You on the other hand have some explaining to do about your "smartest man in the room" claim. Do you really look down on women that much or are you just afraid you don't measure up?

If your disdain for Hillary is truly because of the person she is, then why not drop the bull ****? Why do you feel compelled to include it, and cast yourself as dimwitted? If you weren't, for some inexplicable reason, compelled to attach "cankles" to your criticisms, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's your own fault. Own it.

 

If you don't want to be characterized as sexist, then stop making stupid sexist remarks, and stop trying to defend your shallowness when called on it. Your apparent inability or unwillingness to do so only reinforces my point.

 

As to the last of your drivel, it's possible to identify yourself as either a man of a woman without being sexist. Or are you also one of those idiots who can't discern the difference between "racial" and "racist" as well?

 

Bottom line: as I told Dante, unfortunately for you, you don't get to choose how the rest of the world perceives you. All you get to choose is the way you express yourself which greatly impacts how you're viewed. You've chosen this. Again, own it.

Edited April 15, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Rob's House]

 

It's really not. It's her last name.

Don't kid yourself. That's certainly part of it, but without the first female president pitch she'd be dead in the water.

As Greg says, it's her dynastic family name, not her gender.

 

But even if it weren't, what would be the point of engaging in misogyny? That sort of nonsense always weakens the argument of the one making it.

A red flag goes up whenever I see someone use the word "misogyny." It's usually indicative of a large chip placed firmly on the shoulder of the speaker.

[3rdnlng]

If your disdain for Hillary is truly because of the person she is, then why not drop the bull ****? Why do you feel compelled to include it, and cast yourself as dimwitted? If you weren't, for some inexplicable reason, compelled to attach "cankles" to your criticisms, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's your own fault. Own it.

 

If you don't want to be characterized as sexist, then stop making stupid sexist remarks, and stop trying to defend your shallowness when called on it. Your apparent inability or unwillingness to do so only reinforces my point.

 

As to the last of your drivel, it's possible to identify yourself as either a man of a woman without being sexist. Or are you also one of those idiots who can't discern the difference between "racial" and "racist" as well?

 

Bottom line: as I told Dante, unfortunately for you, you don't get to choose how the rest of the world perceives you. All you get to choose is the way you express yourself which greatly impacts how you're viewed. You've chosen this. Again, own it.

That doesn't answer my question at all. Instead of being a weasel, why don't you answer why you deliberately excluded women? Also, have you ever quoted someone here and changed their words without making it obvious to the rest of us?

[Chef Jim]

If your disdain for Hillary is truly because of the person she is, then why not drop the bull ****? Why do you feel compelled to include it, and cast yourself as dimwitted? If you weren't, for some inexplicable reason, compelled to attach "cankles" to your criticisms, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's your own fault. Own it.

 

If you don't want to be characterized as sexist, then stop making stupid sexist remarks, and stop trying to defend your shallowness when called on it. Your apparent inability or unwillingness to do so only reinforces my point.

 

As to the last of your drivel, it's possible to identify yourself as either a man of a woman without being sexist. Or are you also one of those idiots who can't discern the difference between "racial" and "racist" as well?

 

Bottom line: as I told Dante, unfortunately for you, you don't get to choose how the rest of the world perceives you. All you get to choose is the way you express yourself which greatly impacts how you're viewed. You've chosen this. Again, own it.

 

So one mention of cankles and one is labeled a sexist? Thou doth protest too much.

Don't kid yourself. That's certainly part of it, but without the first female president pitch she'd be dead in the water.

 

A red flag goes up whenever I see someone use the word "misogyny." It's usually indicative of a large chip placed firmly on the shoulder of the speaker.

 

Dude's got a chip the size of a redwood on his shoulder.

[TakeYouToTasker]

That doesn't answer my question at all. Instead of being a weasel, why don't you answer why you deliberately excluded women? Also, have you ever quoted someone here and changed their words without making it obvious to the rest of us?

Because you haven't asked a question, but rather have laid forth an unsubstantiated charge in an attempt to distract from your bull ****.

 

As to any questions you might ask, I'll gladly answer them when they aren't loaded. (If that needs any further clarification, I'll simply ask you when you stopped beating your wife.)

 

Again, if you don't want to appear to be a halfwit, stop behaving like one. Own your words.

Don't kid yourself. That's certainly part of it, but without the first female president pitch she'd be dead in the water.

 

A red flag goes up whenever I see someone use the word "misogyny." It's usually indicative of a large chip placed firmly on the shoulder of the speaker.

I don't need flags. I simply examine the speech of the speaker. When someone lobs out derogatory language towards a female, describing her body, in the context of a political discussion that meets the criterion.

 

So one mention of cankles and one is labeled a sexist? Thou doth protest too much.

One might not necessarily be a sexist, but they are certainly behaving as one, and when called on it, should be ashamed. Defending that sort of garbage, rather than apologetically retracting, is further evidence of a mindset rather than an isolated incident.

[/dev/null]

 

 

 

A picture is worth a thousand words

[Dante]

 

 

 

A picture is worth a thousand words

G'dammit you had to instigate even more? LOL.

A little levity here but not sure if it's as good as that pic. First thing I thought is it was strange the arrow was pointing to the right. I'm sure she doesn't want to give the wrong impression to her leftist core. It has to mean "forward " correct? I like the "pointing to hell" line. The "I'm with stupid" was good to. The lady in the pink top is my new hero.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/video-americans-give-their-thoughts-hillarys-new-campaign-logo

Edited April 15, 2015 by Dante

[B-Man]

Can she be any phonier?

 

Seriously, if you are a Democrat you've got to be concerned with how poorly they have been projecting Hillary. I'm sure there are some supporters that are sweating bullets right about now.

 

Hillary is Just Like Me™!

 

Hillary Clinton is making campaign appearances in Iowa under extremely controlled conditions, and during one event she spoke of commerce:

 

Fruit plant owner says one area he needs more workers is truckers: "shortage of something like 30,000 drivers throughout America"

 

There was no truck shortage on the expressway, according to Clinton, who we’re picturing with her face excitedly pressed to the window of the Mystery Machine

 

Clinton: "I saw hundreds of trucks on I-80"

 

 

 

I'll take "Things Toddlers Say" for $800, Alex.

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Because you haven't asked a question, but rather have laid forth an unsubstantiated charge in an attempt to distract from your bull ****.

 

As to any questions you might ask, I'll gladly answer them when they aren't loaded. (If that needs any further clarification, I'll simply ask you when you stopped beating your wife.)

 

Again, if you don't want to appear to be a halfwit, stop behaving like one. Own your words.

I don't need flags. I simply examine the speech of the speaker. When someone lobs out derogatory language towards a female, describing her body, in the context of a political discussion that meets the criterion.

 

One might not necessarily be a sexist, but they are certainly behaving as one, and when called on it, should be ashamed. Defending that sort of garbage, rather than apologetically retracting, is further evidence of a mindset rather than an isolated incident.

I freely admitted that I used the word "Cankles" instead of Hillary. I own it now and forever. As anybody knows here at PPP I don't usually resort to calling people names based on their physical characteristics but in this case I did and am neither proud nor apologetic for it. It is what it is. The fact of the matter is that you pissed me off with your disingenuous comments. Again, I freely admit to calling Hillary "Cankles" and if you want to continue calling me a sexist for doing so there's not much I can do about it but ask you to come clean too. Now that the Great Cankles Debate is concluded it is time for you to admit or lie about quoting people here and changing their words in those quotes without providing anybody any reason for people here to know that you did so. The "smartest man in the room" recently reminded me that our posts here are saved. Now I already could have found your altered quotes, saved them at the time or be just bluffing. I know what you are thinking. If he didn't already find them or save them from before will he have the time or tenacity to look them up? Well, you just don't know that do you? You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

[B-Man]

[DC Tom]

You sure those two are Secret Service? The one has a pretty short buzz cut. When Hillary was First Lady, she required everyone in the Secret Service and Marine guard wear their hair longer than regulation, as she was so anti-military she wanted to pretend as much as possible they didn't exist. Maybe she's mellowed since...

[/dev/null]

 

I'll grant her the mayor and wife (local pol photo op) and even the Secret Service. But to include one of her campaign staffers and astroturf a former Obama intern and employee of Planned Parenthood might be laughable except most people won't even hear about this. Now one time in 3rd grade that Rubio kid...

[4merper4mer]

That's great. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to choose how the rest of the world perceives you, so if you're comfortable drawing comparisons to a right wing Rachel Maddow, only with more impotent rage, by all means go for it. Just know that people like you weaken every single legitimate argument people who are able to conduct themselves like adults make with your childishness.

 

Congradulations.

Before you "congradulate" people you might want to realize that this is a message board that saves your posts.

[B-Man]

Book detailing Clinton White House drama is No. 1 on NYT best-seller list

By Adam B. Lerner

 

A new book excoriating Hillary and Bill Clintons’ behavior in the White House debuted at No. 1 in its first week on The New York Times’ combined e-book/hardcover best-seller list for April 26, according to a source at the paper.

 

“The Residence: Inside the Private World of The White House,” by Kate Brower, includes a searing account of the Clinton family’s private drama during the scandal-plagued 1990s. Through the eyes of the White House staff

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-book-117016.html#ixzz3XV2Yjm2G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former Secret Service Agent: ‘Everything With The Clintons Is Manufactured’
by Derek Hunter

 

Original Article

Edited April 16, 2015 by B-Man

[TakeYouToTasker]

I freely admitted that I used the word "Cankles" instead of Hillary. I own it now and forever. As anybody knows here at PPP I don't usually resort to calling people names based on their physical characteristics but in this case I did and am neither proud nor apologetic for it. It is what it is.

 

You freely admit it now, however when I initially called out out for your idiocy, you denied any such behavior. The fact of the matter is that you're a liar. As for not usually resorting to substituting insults for substance? You do with enough frequency that it registers with me as a pattern. The fact that you defend your behavior "unapologetically" only speaks to your lack of character. As that, sir, is what it is.

 

 

 

The fact of the matter is that you pissed me off with your disingenuous comments.

The fact that you're "pissed off" rather than ashamed of yourself is the perfect critique of you as a person, and my comments regarding you were spot on, as you continue to reinforce.

 

 

 

Again, I freely admit to calling Hillary "Cankles" and if you want to continue calling me a sexist for doing so there's not much I can do about it but ask you to come clean too. Now that the Great Cankles Debate is concluded it is time for you to admit or lie about quoting people here and changing their words in those quotes without providing anybody any reason for people here to know that you did so.

Your own behavior lables itself sexist. Cheap swipes at the appearance of a woman, unrelated to the topic, is shameful. You absolutely can do something about it, rather than play the victim, by changing your behavior so that others don't see you that way. Act like a grownup.

 

 

 

The "smartest man in the room" recently reminded me that our posts here are saved. Now I already could have found your altered quotes, saved them at the time or be just bluffing. I know what you are thinking. If he didn't already find them or save them from before will he have the time or tenacity to look them up? Well, you just don't know that do you? You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

One hardly has to be the smartest man in the room to call you out when you're acting like the most dense.

 

As for my changing posts? Like this?

 

 

 

Since my own position is absurd and immoral, as I am attempting to justify insulting a womans looks as part of a political discussion, I'm going to attempt to deflect by asking an unrelated question about your posting style, in the hopes that I can "pivot" and no one will notice.

 

Perhaps I should stop and rethink my stances, because I look like a first class boob.

[reddogblitz]

Here is some text from a mail note I got from my Congresswoman today:

 

"Hillary Clinton just announced she'll support a constitutional amendment taking on dark money. This is a HUGE DEAL.

We need 375,981 more signatures to get ONE MILLION Democrats demanding an end to Citizens United.

 

How encouraging is this?! Hillary Clinton called for an END to dark money in politics. She laid it out as a top priority at her first campaign event in Iowa this week.

She is right -- our campaign finance system is broken. We can’t let the Republicans or the Koch brothers buy any more elections. It’s time to get their big money out of politics NOW and forever!"

 

Meanwhile reports are that Hillary will raise $2,000,000,000.00 to run her campaign.

 

This is rich (pun intended).

 

[Chef Jim]

You freely admit it now, however when I initially called out out for your idiocy, you denied any such behavior. The fact of the matter is that you're a liar. As for not usually resorting to substituting insults for substance? You do with enough frequency that it registers with me as a pattern. The fact that you defend your behavior "unapologetically" only speaks to your lack of character. As that, sir, is what it is.

 

 

 

The fact that you're "pissed off" rather than ashamed of yourself is the perfect critique of you as a person, and my comments regarding you were spot on, as you continue to reinforce.

 

 

 

Your own behavior lables itself sexist. Cheap swipes at the appearance of a woman, unrelated to the topic, is shameful. You absolutely can do something about it, rather than play the victim, by changing your behavior so that others don't see you that way. Act like a grownup.

 

 

 

One hardly has to be the smartest man in the room to call you out when you're acting like the most dense.

 

As for my changing posts? Like this?

 

 

 

 

But I guess calling people retards is ok?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

But I guess calling people retards is ok?

If identifying them as a "retard" is relevant to the discussion, absolutely.

[Rob's House]

So if I call Hillary a B word in a situation where I would call Obama a dick head would that be sexist, and if so should I be ashamed of it?