From the looks of it, her make up artists needed extra time to pump more botox into her.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:misogynist !  there it begins....you must hate all women...bad man...

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:You can tell many hardline Republicans are scared out of their wits by her.....

PkrBum wrote:There's never been a more corrupt dc insider candidate... beholden to corps, banks, and foreign influences.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:There's never been a more corrupt dc insider candidate... beholden to corps, banks, and foreign influences.

I'm not going to ask you to support this statement with facts as I think everyone on the forum knows by now that you're incapable of even clarifying your own speech.  Instead, I'll ask you a much simpler question that - I hope, at least - even you can answer.

Assuming someone were to try to offer up evidence in support of the statement that you just made, what sort of facts would be needed?  What sort of facts would you - PkrBum - deem acceptable as a way of either validating or rejecting your comments about Clinton the candidate?

Note that I'm not even asking you to support your bullshit.  Instead, I'm simply asking you what sort of facts do you think would be needed in order to support or reject your comments regarding Clinton?

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:There's never been a more corrupt dc insider candidate... beholden to corps, banks, and foreign influences.

I'm not going to ask you to support this statement with facts as I think everyone on the forum knows by now that you're incapable of even clarifying your own speech.  Instead, I'll ask you a much simpler question that - I hope, at least - even you can answer.

Assuming someone were to try to offer up evidence in support of the statement that you just made, what sort of facts would be needed?  What sort of facts would you - PkrBum - deem acceptable as a way of either validating or rejecting your comments about Clinton the candidate?

Note that I'm not even asking you to support your bullshit.  Instead, I'm simply asking you what sort of facts do you think would be needed in order to support or reject your comments regarding Clinton?

PkrBum wrote:Guess which one of these hillary claims is a lie?

She was opposed to the iraq war before obama was.

Chelsea Clinton was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11.

She landed under sniper fire in Bosnia.

She was named after Sir Edmond Hillary.

Her family was dead broke upon leaving the white house.

Her use of a private email server as sos was simply for convenience to carry one device.

She claimed to have been instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process.

Benghazi was a protest because of a youtube... it was a disgusting video.

She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market.

She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

She opposed NAFTA at the time.

She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

The billing records showed up on their own.

She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

She was always a Yankees fan.

She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons.

She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:There's never been a more corrupt dc insider candidate... beholden to corps, banks, and foreign influences.

I'm not going to ask you to support this statement with facts as I think everyone on the forum knows by now that you're incapable of even clarifying your own speech.  Instead, I'll ask you a much simpler question that - I hope, at least - even you can answer.

Assuming someone were to try to offer up evidence in support of the statement that you just made, what sort of facts would be needed?  What sort of facts would you - PkrBum - deem acceptable as a way of either validating or rejecting your comments about Clinton the candidate?

Note that I'm not even asking you to support your bullshit.  Instead, I'm simply asking you what sort of facts do you think would be needed in order to support or reject your comments regarding Clinton?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Guess which one of these hillary claims is a lie?

She was opposed to the iraq war before obama was.

Chelsea Clinton was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11.

She landed under sniper fire in Bosnia.

She was named after Sir Edmond Hillary.

Her family was dead broke upon leaving the white house.

Her use of a private email server as sos was simply for convenience to carry one device.

She claimed to have been instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process.

Benghazi was a protest because of a youtube... it was a disgusting video.

She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market.

She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

She opposed NAFTA at the time.

She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

The billing records showed up on their own.

She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

She was always a Yankees fan.

She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons.

She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia.

This was my post to you, PkrBum:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:There's never been a more corrupt dc insider candidate... beholden to corps, banks, and foreign influences.

I'm not going to ask you to support this statement with facts as I think everyone on the forum knows by now that you're incapable of even clarifying your own speech.  Instead, I'll ask you a much simpler question that - I hope, at least - even you can answer.

Assuming someone were to try to offer up evidence in support of the statement that you just made, what sort of facts would be needed?  What sort of facts would you - PkrBum - deem acceptable as a way of either validating or rejecting your comments about Clinton the candidate?

Note that I'm not even asking you to support your bullshit.  Instead, I'm simply asking you what sort of facts do you think would be needed in order to support or reject your comments regarding Clinton?

Perhaps I need to dumb this dumb even further for you.  PkrBum, you said that Clinton is the most corrupt candidate ever because she is beholden to "corps, banks, and foreign influences."  The question to you was, what sort of facts could we look to in order to confirm or deny that statement?  

Example:  I say "Clinton is more beholden to banks than anyone else!"   An example of a fact that may be able to support that claim would be a historical and current look at campaign donations received from banks by candidate.

Example:  I say "The Patriots won the last Super Bowl."  An example of a fact that would support or reject such a claim is the score of the last super bowl.

Example:  You say "There's never been a more corrupt dc insider candidate... beholden to corps, banks, and foreign influences."   What sort of facts would you deem acceptable insofar as their ability to support or deny such a claim?  Campaign donations from banks by candidate?  Correlations between lobbyist money and voting record by senate candidate?   What?  Basically, what is it that you look to in order to arrive that the opinion that you stated?  But I'm not even asking for specifics here.  All you have to do is broadly explain what types of data may support or reject your claims.   Are you at least capable of answering that?

2seaoat wrote:My therapist told about Randolph the brown nosed reindeer today while she was bending my arm. Seems he was the fastest reindeer of all but had trouble stopping.....


I do not even want to know how Rudolf got the red nose.