Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Keep in mind people, young girls were held captive and repeatedly raped on this island. That has been proven. And Bill Clinton was there. So you do the math. It's not about Republican vs. Democrat. These young girls still haven't received real justice.
It's about evidence. You got any?
Yup, and Ted Kennedy didn't kill that young girl and get away with it either. I hear ya.
You gave up on the Clinton thing huh?
Clinton is a degenerate sexual predator. He always has been. Shame on all those supposed 'Womens' Rights' activist groups who have consistently defended and supported him. He's a pervert who should be doing jail time.
And you are a circus geek with an oddly shaped glass eye that likes to club baby seals. See how easy it is to throw unfounded shit?
None of the girls has accused Clinton of having sex with them, much less accusing of being forced to have sex with Clinton.
They have accused many other leading political figures. Clinton's name is not on the list of accused.
So I would strongly suggest you sick little retards stop your mental masturbations.
There goes Gingrich's wife's presidential run in 2016.I went to school with a guy who ended up smoking crack and went to prison for armed robbery. Does that mean I'm guilty too? Guilt by association doesn't quite cut it. Come up with facts instead of innuendo, and you might have something.
If you had a record on file of drug violations and being a chronic user, your regular association with this person would definitely affect public perception and would have much more significance than your just going to the same school with that person. This would not be anywhere near the scandal that it has become if Bill Clinton was not already on very public record of all sorts of sexual misconduct, accusations, allegations, and documented incidences.
The frustrating thing to a lot of us is that a Republican candidate is required to be squeaky clean and above reproach or he is demonized to ridiculous lengths and is considered unelectable. The same standard does not seem to apply to a popular Democrat however, who will be forgiven for just about anything and anything that can be denied will be denied. Hillary of course was not implicated in any of that, but she continues to use Bill for whatever political hay she can make with him.
It is rather pathetic when we set the bar so low for what we expect from our national leaders.
Squeaky clean? You mean like Gingrich? Obviously, you give accusations and allegations the same credibility as you might facts. Just because the right wing goes all "Hair On Fire" crazy about something doesn't mean there is any thing to it. Your little reference to past history demonstrated the reason for common disbelief of all right wing claims
LOL. Indeed.
I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.
As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.
Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?
Keep in mind people, young girls were held captive and repeatedly raped on this island. That has been proven. And Bill Clinton was there. So you do the math. It's not about Republican vs. Democrat. These young girls still haven't received real justice.
It's about evidence. You got any?
Yup, and Ted Kennedy didn't kill that young girl and get away with it either. I hear ya.
You gave up on the Clinton thing huh?
Yeah, pretty much. I realize he's a NWO Globalist Elite bastard who will not be held accountable. I fully expect the Elite-controlled American Government/Corporate Media to quickly sweep this one under the carpet. They have to protect their own. These girls lives mean nothing to them. They're mere slaves to be used & abused. Sadly, it is what it is.
Clinton is a degenerate sexual predator. He always has been. Shame on all those supposed 'Womens' Rights' activist groups who have consistently defended and supported him. He's a pervert who should be doing jail time.
And you are a circus geek with an oddly shaped glass eye that likes to club baby seals. See how easy it is to throw unfounded shit?
The accusations about Clinton are not "unfounded." There's actually quite a large foundation for them.
Keep in mind people, young girls were held captive and repeatedly raped on this island. That has been proven. And Bill Clinton was there. So you do the math. It's not about Republican vs. Democrat. These young girls still haven't received real justice.
It's about evidence. You got any?
Yup, and Ted Kennedy didn't kill that young girl and get away with it either. I hear ya.
You gave up on the Clinton thing huh?
Yeah, pretty much. I realize he's a NWO Globalist Elite bastard who will not be held accountable. I fully expect the Elite-controlled American Government/Corporate Media to quickly sweep this one under the carpet. They have to protect their own. These girls lives mean nothing to them. They're mere slaves to be used & abused. Sadly, it is what it is.
Of course it's tragic for young girls to have to suffer through that, but what has that got to do with your dumb ass claim that Clinton did it?
There goes Gingrich's wife's presidential run in 2016.If you had a record on file of drug violations and being a chronic user, your regular association with this person would definitely affect public perception and would have much more significance than your just going to the same school with that person. This would not be anywhere near the scandal that it has become if Bill Clinton was not already on very public record of all sorts of sexual misconduct, accusations, allegations, and documented incidences.
The frustrating thing to a lot of us is that a Republican candidate is required to be squeaky clean and above reproach or he is demonized to ridiculous lengths and is considered unelectable. The same standard does not seem to apply to a popular Democrat however, who will be forgiven for just about anything and anything that can be denied will be denied. Hillary of course was not implicated in any of that, but she continues to use Bill for whatever political hay she can make with him.
It is rather pathetic when we set the bar so low for what we expect from our national leaders.
Squeaky clean? You mean like Gingrich? Obviously, you give accusations and allegations the same credibility as you might facts. Just because the right wing goes all "Hair On Fire" crazy about something doesn't mean there is any thing to it. Your little reference to past history demonstrated the reason for common disbelief of all right wing claims
LOL. Indeed.
I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.
As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.
Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?
He was there, numskull.
Clinton is a degenerate sexual predator. He always has been. Shame on all those supposed 'Womens' Rights' activist groups who have consistently defended and supported him. He's a pervert who should be doing jail time.
And you are a circus geek with an oddly shaped glass eye that likes to club baby seals. See how easy it is to throw unfounded shit?
The accusations about Clinton are not "unfounded." There's actually quite a large foundation for them.
Ok. Lets hear that foundation. Unproved accusations don't count.
It's about evidence. You got any?
Yup, and Ted Kennedy didn't kill that young girl and get away with it either. I hear ya.
You gave up on the Clinton thing huh?
Yeah, pretty much. I realize he's a NWO Globalist Elite bastard who will not be held accountable. I fully expect the Elite-controlled American Government/Corporate Media to quickly sweep this one under the carpet. They have to protect their own. These girls lives mean nothing to them. They're mere slaves to be used & abused. Sadly, it is what it is.
Of course it's tragic for young girls to have to suffer through that, but what has that got to do with your dumb ass claim that Clinton did it?
Your man is a known degenerate sexual predator. He visited his pedophile friend and his sex slave island several times. That's on record. So do the math. But hey, you wanna go on living in blissful ignorance, so be it. I can't change that.
Clinton is a degenerate sexual predator. He always has been. Shame on all those supposed 'Womens' Rights' activist groups who have consistently defended and supported him. He's a pervert who should be doing jail time.
And you are a circus geek with an oddly shaped glass eye that likes to club baby seals. See how easy it is to throw unfounded shit?
The accusations about Clinton are not "unfounded." There's actually quite a large foundation for them.
Ok. Lets hear that foundation. Unproved accusations don't count.
Would you really trust leaving your young daughter, sister, or other female family members with Bill Clinton? Think about that for a bit.
There goes Gingrich's wife's presidential run in 2016.I went to school with a guy who ended up smoking crack and went to prison for armed robbery. Does that mean I'm guilty too? Guilt by association doesn't quite cut it. Come up with facts instead of innuendo, and you might have something.
If you had a record on file of drug violations and being a chronic user, your regular association with this person would definitely affect public perception and would have much more significance than your just going to the same school with that person. This would not be anywhere near the scandal that it has become if Bill Clinton was not already on very public record of all sorts of sexual misconduct, accusations, allegations, and documented incidences.
The frustrating thing to a lot of us is that a Republican candidate is required to be squeaky clean and above reproach or he is demonized to ridiculous lengths and is considered unelectable. The same standard does not seem to apply to a popular Democrat however, who will be forgiven for just about anything and anything that can be denied will be denied. Hillary of course was not implicated in any of that, but she continues to use Bill for whatever political hay she can make with him.
It is rather pathetic when we set the bar so low for what we expect from our national leaders.
Squeaky clean? You mean like Gingrich? Obviously, you give accusations and allegations the same credibility as you might facts. Just because the right wing goes all "Hair On Fire" crazy about something doesn't mean there is any thing to it. Your little reference to past history demonstrated the reason for common disbelief of all right wing claims
LOL. Indeed.
I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.
As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.
Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?
Clinton is a degenerate sexual predator. He always has been. Shame on all those supposed 'Womens' Rights' activist groups who have consistently defended and supported him. He's a pervert who should be doing jail time.
And you are a circus geek with an oddly shaped glass eye that likes to club baby seals. See how easy it is to throw unfounded shit?
The accusations about Clinton are not "unfounded." There's actually quite a large foundation for them.
Ok. Lets hear that foundation. Unproved accusations don't count.
There goes Gingrich's wife's presidential run in 2016.If you had a record on file of drug violations and being a chronic user, your regular association with this person would definitely affect public perception and would have much more significance than your just going to the same school with that person. This would not be anywhere near the scandal that it has become if Bill Clinton was not already on very public record of all sorts of sexual misconduct, accusations, allegations, and documented incidences.
The frustrating thing to a lot of us is that a Republican candidate is required to be squeaky clean and above reproach or he is demonized to ridiculous lengths and is considered unelectable. The same standard does not seem to apply to a popular Democrat however, who will be forgiven for just about anything and anything that can be denied will be denied. Hillary of course was not implicated in any of that, but she continues to use Bill for whatever political hay she can make with him.
It is rather pathetic when we set the bar so low for what we expect from our national leaders.
Squeaky clean? You mean like Gingrich? Obviously, you give accusations and allegations the same credibility as you might facts. Just because the right wing goes all "Hair On Fire" crazy about something doesn't mean there is any thing to it. Your little reference to past history demonstrated the reason for common disbelief of all right wing claims
LOL. Indeed.
I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.
As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.
Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?
The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.
Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.
And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.
Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?
I don't know about BC being a pedophile. This could pan out to be like the Obama birth certificate conspiracy in that it could be used to brand the far right as a bunch of looney conspiracy theorists. That being said, perhaps I am a looney conspiracy theorist anyway in that I suspect that the MSM is giving BC the JFK treatment when it comes to his post presidency philandering. If W were to be known to be cheating on his wife, the MSN would be all over it, but BC cheating on Hillary, not so much.
Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?There goes Gingrich's wife's presidential run in 2016.Squeaky clean? You mean like Gingrich? Obviously, you give accusations and allegations the same credibility as you might facts. Just because the right wing goes all "Hair On Fire" crazy about something doesn't mean there is any thing to it. Your little reference to past history demonstrated the reason for common disbelief of all right wing claims
LOL. Indeed.
I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.
As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.
Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?
The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.
Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.
And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.
Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?
Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
There goes Gingrich's wife's presidential run in 2016.Squeaky clean? You mean like Gingrich? Obviously, you give accusations and allegations the same credibility as you might facts. Just because the right wing goes all "Hair On Fire" crazy about something doesn't mean there is any thing to it. Your little reference to past history demonstrated the reason for common disbelief of all right wing claims
LOL. Indeed.
I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.
As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.
Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?
The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.
Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.
And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.
Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?
Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?
I remember you didn't think you'd lose so bad last November either, yet you did, didn't you?On what planet?
As much as Republicans are running a victory lap after the 2014 election, their rise to the top will be short lived
1. In 2016, Republicans have to defend 24 Senate Seats while Dems defend just 10. Senate will go back to the Dems in 2016
2. The Electoral College leans heavily blue with Dems having nearly the 270 votes they need before the election even starts. Republicans need to win 70% of the Electoral Vote in Battleground States just to reach 270....not too likely
3. If the Republicans run anyone but Jeb Bush against Hillary, Hillary will take 370+ electoral votes and Republicans staying home will lead to a 60 Seat Democratic Senate and possible House
I'm not too worried. The majority of Americans are fed up with you progs and the likes of bath house Barry and dingy Harry ramming your marxist, commie agenda down the throats against the majority of Americans who are against it.
It's amazing how in DEFEAT, you progtards think you actually WON something, or you're somehow on GOOD FOOTING. Well, dream all you want, but the movement is AGAINST you, whether you're able to DEAL with that or not.
I was also correct about the Electoral College distribution in 2008 and 2012
Republicans BARELY reached 270 EV when Bush ran in 2000 and 2004. The electoral college has turned more blue since that time. Jeb Bush could make it interesting by competing in Florida and Ohio. Any other Republican candidate would get swamped and take his party down with him
2016 is a long ways off, dude. I know that you want the country run totally by liberal socialist democrats, but I seriously doubt that you will get your wish---------------ever.
The Demographics in swing states HAVE changed...they have become more blue
Republicans playing to the right will not help those demographics
None of the girls has accused Clinton of having sex with them, much less accusing of being forced to have sex with Clinton.
They have accused many other leading political figures. Clinton's name is not on the list of accused.
So I would strongly suggest you sick little retards stop your mental masturbations.
I remember you didn't think you'd lose so bad last November either, yet you did, didn't you?As much as Republicans are running a victory lap after the 2014 election, their rise to the top will be short lived
1. In 2016, Republicans have to defend 24 Senate Seats while Dems defend just 10. Senate will go back to the Dems in 2016
2. The Electoral College leans heavily blue with Dems having nearly the 270 votes they need before the election even starts. Republicans need to win 70% of the Electoral Vote in Battleground States just to reach 270....not too likely
3. If the Republicans run anyone but Jeb Bush against Hillary, Hillary will take 370+ electoral votes and Republicans staying home will lead to a 60 Seat Democratic Senate and possible House
I'm not too worried. The majority of Americans are fed up with you progs and the likes of bath house Barry and dingy Harry ramming your marxist, commie agenda down the throats against the majority of Americans who are against it.
It's amazing how in DEFEAT, you progtards think you actually WON something, or you're somehow on GOOD FOOTING. Well, dream all you want, but the movement is AGAINST you, whether you're able to DEAL with that or not.
I was also correct about the Electoral College distribution in 2008 and 2012
Republicans BARELY reached 270 EV when Bush ran in 2000 and 2004. The electoral college has turned more blue since that time. Jeb Bush could make it interesting by competing in Florida and Ohio. Any other Republican candidate would get swamped and take his party down with him
2016 is a long ways off, dude. I know that you want the country run totally by liberal socialist democrats, but I seriously doubt that you will get your wish---------------ever.
The Demographics in swing states HAVE changed...they have become more blue
Republicans playing to the right will not help those demographics
