Hillary looks a mess. Fat and dumpy. What american would vote for her.?

[HenryBHough]

Remember, Pogo expects everyone else to do his/her/its work for him/her/it. Unwilling.....or unable......do do a websearch, inevitably whines for "links".

 

[Pogo]

Here's another use for that dictionary:
Nothing about "teabagging" -- the sexual term -- requires homosexuality. You're the one reaching here.

Right...

Because you libs have been gleeful insulting Conservative males with the slanderous accusation that they like to have women preform oral sexual acts on their balls...

Link?

I'm not citing a source. I pointing out that your claim is senseless.

You libs have been using TEa Bagger as an insult, and giggling like school girls over saying a dirty word.

Perhaps this flew over your head the first time. Once again, in bold:

Link?
That means "show me where I did that". "Quote" will do too.

And of course, as you libs are the ones making these homophobic slurs, you are homophobes.

Which, again shows that all the lib talk of diversity is nothing but bullshit.

Shame on you.

Shame on who, asshole? You just made it all up. You showed no evidence whatsoever. Asked for a link -- crickets. Nothing. Bupkis. Fuck-all.

Go ahead and link to my posts on "talk of diversity" while we're at it.

Dumbass...

If you personally never stooped to the level of the many libs who have, and in a few extremely pathetic cases are STILL using homophobic sluts to ridicule their enemies, than good for you.

If you have spoken out against such hateful propaganda techniques, then even more good for you, and I apologize for lumping you in with the homophobic demagogues.

Thank you.
People are individuals, not committees.

 

[Pogo]

Remember, Pogo expects everyone else to do his/her/its work for him/her/it. Unwilling.....or unable......do do a websearch, inevitably whines for "links".

When they make an accusation of something I didn't do, yer god damn fucking right I do. I demand they show something I already know does not exist. Count on it.

What do you do sir? Lie back and think of England?


Of course that query assumes you've even seen such broad-brush generalization attacks, which is doubtful.

 

[Pogo]

Really -- so you vote for candidates based on what they look like?

And candidates that aren't even running for anything too. That's deep, man.

You need to turn in your voter registration card. Clearly some people can't handle it.

Are you kidding?
Do you have any idea how much money candidates and their campaigns spend on physical appearance. clothing and grooming?
My guess is at least 50% of the campaign budgets. More for those less attractive. That includes BOTH genders.

My guess would be higher than that if you counted up everything that builds the Illusion.
Nixon got it after the debate in 1960. Next time he came back he brought advertising/media talent in (Haldeman, Ailes).

And they do that because morons like the OP enable them. ShitSpitters and his ilk represent the lowest common denominator mentality they target - the unwashed lumpen proletariat, gleaning superficial impressions from their TV stupor as they obediently sponge up whatever the box orders them to think. As I'm fond of observing, we do not "elect a candidate" any more. There was a time we did but that's in the past. Now we buy a product. Whichever one markets to the most TV sets, wins.

There's no reason in the world to accept that mentality. That's why we have stuff like this message board.
If we actually went all the way and voted on nothing but superficial impressions -- as the OP suggests-- there would be no need for a message board. There would be no need for debates. There would be no need for policy. You'd just sit in front of a box showing a series of pictures, and when you pointed to the right one you'd get a banana.

Fuck dat shit, sez I.

 

[Vigilante]

Really -- so you vote for candidates based on what they look like?

And candidates that aren't even running for anything too. That's deep, man.

You need to turn in your voter registration card. Clearly some people can't handle it.

Are you kidding?
Do you have any idea how much money candidates and their campaigns spend on physical appearance. clothing and grooming?
My guess is at least 50% of the campaign budgets. More for those less attractive. That includes BOTH genders.

My guess would be higher than that if you counted up everything that builds the Illusion.
Nixon got it after the debate in 1960. Next time he came back he brought advertising/media talent in (Haldeman, Ailes).

And they do that because morons like the OP enable them. ShitSpitters and his ilk represent the lowest common denominator mentality they target - the unwashed lumpen proletariat, gleaning superficial impressions from their TV stupor as they obediently sponge up whatever the box orders them to think.

There's no reason in the world to accept that mentality. That's why we have stuff like this message board.
If we actually went all the way and voted on nothing but superficial impressions -- as the OP suggests-- there would be no need for a message board. There would be no need for debates. There would be no need for policy. You'd just sit in front of a box showing a series of pictures, and when you pointed to the right one you'd get a banana.

Fuck dat shit, sez I.

 

[Pogo]

Wasn't that about as articulate as an orangutan's grunt.

Thanks for breaking a synaptical sweat there, Eastman Kodak.

 

[Vigilante]

Wasn't that about as articulate as an orangutan's grunt.

Thanks for breaking a synaptical sweat there, Eastman Kodak.

Anytime little CU*T!....Anytime!

 

[BULLDOG]

Link?

I'm not citing a source. I pointing out that your claim is senseless.

You libs have been using TEa Bagger as an insult, and giggling like school girls over saying a dirty word.

Perhaps this flew over your head the first time. Once again, in bold:

Link?
That means "show me where I did that". "Quote" will do too.

And of course, as you libs are the ones making these homophobic slurs, you are homophobes.

Which, again shows that all the lib talk of diversity is nothing but bullshit.

Shame on you.

Shame on who, asshole? You just made it all up. You showed no evidence whatsoever. Asked for a link -- crickets. Nothing. Bupkis. Fuck-all.

Go ahead and link to my posts on "talk of diversity" while we're at it.

Dumbass...

If you personally never stooped to the level of the many libs who have, and in a few extremely pathetic cases are STILL using homophobic sluts to ridicule their enemies, than good for you.

If you have spoken out against such hateful propaganda techniques, then even more good for you, and I apologize for lumping you in with the homophobic demagogues.

Nice try, but me laughing at your stupid choice of name doesn't make me a homophobe. It makes you a funny idiot.

Using an implication of homosexuality as an insult, does make you a homophobe.

That you don't realize it, and all the other libs didn't either, shows all that talk about diversity and tolerance and multiculturalism is complete bullshit.

Another imaginary claim by the right that has nothing to do with reality. If liberals were really the monsters you like to pretend we are, I'd be conservative.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Really -- so you vote for candidates based on what they look like?

And candidates that aren't even running for anything too. That's deep, man.

You need to turn in your voter registration card. Clearly some people can't handle it.

Are you kidding?
Do you have any idea how much money candidates and their campaigns spend on physical appearance. clothing and grooming?
My guess is at least 50% of the campaign budgets. More for those less attractive. That includes BOTH genders.

My guess would be higher than that if you counted up everything that builds the Illusion.
Nixon got it after the debate in 1960. Next time he came back he brought advertising/media talent in (Haldeman, Ailes).

And they do that because morons like the OP enable them. ShitSpitters and his ilk represent the lowest common denominator mentality they target - the unwashed lumpen proletariat, gleaning superficial impressions from their TV stupor as they obediently sponge up whatever the box orders them to think. As I'm fond of observing, we do not "elect a candidate" any more. There was a time we did but that's in the past. Now we buy a product. Whichever one markets to the most TV sets, wins.

There's no reason in the world to accept that mentality. That's why we have stuff like this message board.
If we actually went all the way and voted on nothing but superficial impressions -- as the OP suggests-- there would be no need for a message board. There would be no need for debates. There would be no need for policy. You'd just sit in front of a box showing a series of pictures, and when you pointed to the right one you'd get a banana.

Fuck dat shit, sez I.

You just contradicted your earlier post then..

 

[Pogo]

Really -- so you vote for candidates based on what they look like?

And candidates that aren't even running for anything too. That's deep, man.

You need to turn in your voter registration card. Clearly some people can't handle it.

Are you kidding?
Do you have any idea how much money candidates and their campaigns spend on physical appearance. clothing and grooming?
My guess is at least 50% of the campaign budgets. More for those less attractive. That includes BOTH genders.

My guess would be higher than that if you counted up everything that builds the Illusion.
Nixon got it after the debate in 1960. Next time he came back he brought advertising/media talent in (Haldeman, Ailes).

And they do that because morons like the OP enable them. ShitSpitters and his ilk represent the lowest common denominator mentality they target - the unwashed lumpen proletariat, gleaning superficial impressions from their TV stupor as they obediently sponge up whatever the box orders them to think. As I'm fond of observing, we do not "elect a candidate" any more. There was a time we did but that's in the past. Now we buy a product. Whichever one markets to the most TV sets, wins.

There's no reason in the world to accept that mentality. That's why we have stuff like this message board.
If we actually went all the way and voted on nothing but superficial impressions -- as the OP suggests-- there would be no need for a message board. There would be no need for debates. There would be no need for policy. You'd just sit in front of a box showing a series of pictures, and when you pointed to the right one you'd get a banana.

Fuck dat shit, sez I.

You just contradicted your earlier post then..

It's what I said since I got here -- post 2.

 

[skye]

I was going to say something very bad and hurtful....against Hilllary Clinton...

very hurtful....


shall I?


mm

let the loser Clinton go....


we want to hurt Hussein Obama ...not Clinton shit so much....

 

[auditor0007]

The bags under her eyes makes it look like she is always tired. She should at least have that taken care of with some kind of botox or a face lift.
If she looks this tired already before she even starts her campaign, what will she look like when she really gets very little sleep?
If she looks tired and old now, what will she look like under the huge pressures of being President?
Look at how quick Obama started turning grey.

Turning gray happens to an awful lot of men between the age of 45 and 55. I have a ton of gray hair. My beard is completely white. I'm 51, and six years ago I barely had any gray at all.

 

[Vigilante]

My GOD.... this old HAG doesn't even TRY to go the face lift route.... she need to take Piglosi lessons! She has enough furrows to cover the back 40! This is a TODAY picture.... ridden hard, put away wet! The BROWN teeth are a facial enhancement...are they not.... gives her that ANCIENT look she is trying to portrait!

GETTING READY: HILLARY GOES TO WHITE HOUSE!

 

[skye]

No


Fuck Hussein Barack


He is the one we all hate!!!!!

He is the AntiChrist.

OK?

 

[Vigilante]

No


Fuck Hussein Barack


He is the one we all hate!!!!!

He is the AntiChrist.

OK?

He's history Skye, the Hildebeasty is the new SATAN!

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Correll]

I'm not citing a source. I pointing out that your claim is senseless.

You libs have been using TEa Bagger as an insult, and giggling like school girls over saying a dirty word.

Perhaps this flew over your head the first time. Once again, in bold:

Link?
That means "show me where I did that". "Quote" will do too.

And of course, as you libs are the ones making these homophobic slurs, you are homophobes.

Which, again shows that all the lib talk of diversity is nothing but bullshit.

Shame on you.

Shame on who, asshole? You just made it all up. You showed no evidence whatsoever. Asked for a link -- crickets. Nothing. Bupkis. Fuck-all.

Go ahead and link to my posts on "talk of diversity" while we're at it.

Dumbass...

If you personally never stooped to the level of the many libs who have, and in a few extremely pathetic cases are STILL using homophobic sluts to ridicule their enemies, than good for you.

If you have spoken out against such hateful propaganda techniques, then even more good for you, and I apologize for lumping you in with the homophobic demagogues.

Nice try, but me laughing at your stupid choice of name doesn't make me a homophobe. It makes you a funny idiot.

Using an implication of homosexuality as an insult, does make you a homophobe.

That you don't realize it, and all the other libs didn't either, shows all that talk about diversity and tolerance and multiculturalism is complete bullshit.

Another imaginary claim by the right that has nothing to do with reality. If liberals were really the monsters you like to pretend we are, I'd be conservative.

By using an accusation of homosexual behavior as an insult, you reveal that you believe being homosexual is something to be ashamed of.

That is what a homophobic slur IS.

It shows that your lib commitment to "diversity" is nothing but a facade that is only brought into play when it is useful to advance your agenda, not something you truly believe, or have internalized into your own thought patterns.

 

[ChrisL]

Hillary looks a mess. Fat and dumpy. What american would vote for her.?

nanny staters

I don't like loserterians or far left liberals. I don't mind the government doing things that make sense. I just doubt Hilliary will be anything other then a extreme liberal bitch.

I wonder if she'd make better decisions than Obama though? I wonder if she would be trying to make deals with Iran?

she certainly can not do any worse

but is that where we want to be as a nation

barely better then the current prezbo

I was just wondering out loud if she would have been a better president than Obama.

just as bad but in different ways.

Aren't they all?

 

[High_Gravity]

How can she manage the country when she can't even manage herself.? Looks like she eats ice cream all day and never gets any exercise. Same age as Romney and yet he looks healthy and fit!. And twenty years ago she was really pretty.

Ice cream everyday? what are you stupid or something?

 

[ChrisL]

No


Fuck Hussein Barack


He is the one we all hate!!!!!

He is the AntiChrist.

OK?

He's history Skye, the Hildebeasty is the new SATAN!

You believe that?? I mean, that antichrist stuff?