Greg F Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 theres nobody in the history of america that has a broader range of education, intelligence, and direct experience for the job of the presidency Come on ... You write for the Onion don't ya?
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 theres nobody in the history of america that has a broader range of education, intelligence, and direct experience for the job of the presidency Colin Powell.
IDBillzFan Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 theres nobody in the history of america that has a broader range of education, intelligence, and direct experience for the job of the presidency Are you genuinely unaware she used her position as SoS to launder foreign funds through the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors to countries that support terrorists? Are you not familiar with this little deal? You honestly believe that in the history of our great nation, this lying, corrupt, deceptive ("you mean, like, with a cloth?") money-laundering pig is better positioned to be president than literally ANYONE? Man. Good thing you're not a partisan.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 theres nobody in the history of america that has a broader range of education, intelligence, and direct experience for the job of the presidency Henry Kissinger (though ineligible)
GG Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Henry Kissinger (though ineligible) Because he's not a natural born citizen or a Jew?
keepthefaith Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Electing Hillary based on her "experience" would be similar to hiring Hank Bullough to be a head coach of an NFL team.
B-Man Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) USA TODAY COLUMN: Elections Matter — Too Much. “In other words, if Americans increasingly find it intolerable that their political opponents control the government, that’s because government controls too much.” Plus a proposal for a bipartisan remedy! Edited January 24, 2017 by B-Man
Greg F Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Electing Hillary based on her "experience" would be similar to hiring Hank Bullough Rich Kotite to be a head coach of an NFL team. FIFY
KD in CA Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Come on ... You write for the Onion don't ya? Actually, now that the Onion has been bought by a big Hillary donor you might be right. The Onion is now in the left wing line up of 'oh look we're comedy, so please don't notice us sucking the left wing tit' meathead is doing some serious trolling here. I for one find it hysterical that the retards who actually do buy into the Hillary 'experience' line are suffering even more greatly for their golden girl being trashed by the barbaric Trump.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Because he's not a natural born citizen or a Jew? [/Ozimandius He's not a Natural Born Jew Edited January 24, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
Maury Ballstein Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Where he been. I wanna hear his take on that Richard Spencer getting punched in the face by a "cuck" ? Hahahaha.
/dev/null Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Electing Hillary based on her "experience" would be similar to hiring Hank Bullough to be a head coach of an NFL team. FIFY I was thinking more along the lines of a Chan Gailey.
Meathead Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Henry Kissinger (though ineligible) i meant that actually ran for president the rest of you are again forgetting that i dont view the world through the lens of a political partisan. i dont add points for being on one side and deduct points for being on the other everybody gets a fair evalulation. hillary had a fantastic background for the job, i obviously succumbed to a bit of hyperbole for ignoring an extremely well qualified candidate like poppy but the point remains - comparing her qualifications to donalds is like comparing jim kelly and uncle rico for the job of quarterback
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 comparing her qualifications to donalds is like comparing jim kelly and uncle rico for the job of quarterback You didn't just compare her to Trump. You said she was the best Presidential candidate ever. In the history of forever. But tell us again how you don't view the world through the lens of a political partisan.
keepthefaith Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 I was thinking more along the lines of a Chan Gailey. Actually the league is full of Hillary-like performances among head coaches.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 i meant that actually ran for president the rest of you are again forgetting that i dont view the world through the lens of a political partisan. i dont add points for being on one side and deduct points for being on the other everybody gets a fair evalulation. hillary had a fantastic background for the job, i obviously succumbed to a bit of hyperbole for ignoring an extremely well qualified candidate like poppy but the point remains - comparing her qualifications to donalds is like comparing jim kelly and uncle rico for the job of quarterback Stop trumpeting you supposed "non partisan" world view, it's hollow and empty when you have no idea where others stand on issues, and you assume them to be partisan without the knowledge of their posting histories. To wit: you assume that those whom oppose your view that Hillary Clinton was qualified to be President are opposing you because they are partisan. You're wrong about that 100%. Further, I'll simply ask that you stop responding to my posts if you can't be bothered to answer the questions I posed to you earlier.
Meathead Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 even after decades of conversations on poltical boads im finding the partisan attacks surprisingly weak here i read almost ever post but ive gotten good at skimming so many of you are ending up on a sort of mental ignore. i reserve actual ignores for the worst of the worst so it is exceedingly rare for me to actually use that feature but right now there is an even higher percentage of mental ignores than usual. my guess is that the mean abusive personalities have been winning here for so long that reasonable ppl dont even bother to come in here anymore hopefully i can draw a few more in as time goes on. or i might just give up. i guess we will see wtf. is my keyboard dropping characters or something? man tons of typos today
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Stop trumpeting you supposed "non partisan" world view, it's hollow and empty when you have no idea where others stand on issues, and you assume them to be partisan without the knowledge of their posting histories. To wit: you assume that those whom oppose your view that Hillary Clinton was qualified to be President are opposing you because they are partisan. You're wrong about that 100%. Further, I'll simply ask that you stop responding to my posts if you can't be bothered to answer the questions I posed to you earlier. You think he isn't non-partisan because he thinks Hillary is more qualified than Trump? Take off you blinders man.
boyst Posted January 24, 2017 Author Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) even after decades of conversations on poltical boads im finding the partisan attacks surprisingly weak here i read almost ever post but ive gotten good at skimming so many of you are ending up on a sort of mental ignore. i reserve actual ignores for the worst of the worst so it is exceedingly rare for me to actually use that feature but right now there is an even higher percentage of mental ignores than usual. my guess is that the mean abusive personalities have been winning here for so long that reasonable ppl dont even bother to come in here anymore hopefully i can draw a few more in as time goes on. or i might just give up. i guess we will see wtf. is my keyboard dropping characters or something? man tons of typos today please, ignore me. I'm incompetent and still view you as a mental midget. But, up there where you're on your nonpartisan pedestal, where you have experience in the internet over 9,000 times more vast than anyone here I laugh. You're worse than a mouth breather on /pol. At least there when they want to troll they can and you'd be ignored for being a weakling. Here idiots spoon feed you to result in EII, Tibs etc PS. I'm mean and all but I don't win ****. Its the internet. No one wins. That you suggest winning on the internet is a possibility englihtens me to how ridiculous you are. Edited January 24, 2017 by Boyst62
Recommended Posts