- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTo say that she has no qualifications tips your transparency.
Gender isn't the issue.
Character and qualifications are.
HRC has neither.
Isn't it awkward being so obvious?
Why don't you leave it that she has no character, where you at least have a case to make?
Trump has your same problem which is why he can't beat a very venerable Clinton.
Originally posted by stevemccThe things that stand as her qualifications (according to her supporters) are the very things which disqualify her.
To say that she has no qualifications tips your transparency.
Isn't it awkward being so obvious?
Why don't you leave it that she has no character, where you at least have a case to make?
Trump has your same problem which is why he can't beat a very venerable Clinton.
She had a dismal record as a senator from her carpetbagging days.
Her time as SoS was an unmitigated disaster, from insanely wretched decisions which cost people's lives to pedestrian issues so painfully obvious to even entry level internet users such as email security, she has proven time after time we wouldn't trust her as the town dog catcher.
She's been a flop at literally everything she's put her hand to or on, save one: she speeches like an angel, if the prices people have been paying to hear her sing in private is any indication.
Them words she uses are SO eloquent, SO powerful and SO inspiring, the hoi polloi have been forbidden to hear them.
Maybe we just let her give speeches instead?
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat else could I have possibly been referencing in response to Suzianne's irrelevant off-topic comment?
"At least my perspective has the weight of evidence behind it."
that the earth is flat?
Yes, the weight of evidence (that which counts as factual scientific evidence) points to a flat earth.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHUh-huh...
What else could I have possibly been referencing in response to Suzianne's irrelevant off-topic comment?
Yes, the weight of evidence (that which counts as factual scientific evidence) points to a flat earth.
As I said, so much for your whack-a-doodle-doo opinions.
Evidence of Hillary's "guilt" is equally as tenuous and fanciful.
Originally posted by SuzianneYou either have your head up your ass or you are simply blinded by your hatred toward men to consider that crook anything other than criminal.
Uh-huh...
As I said, so much for your whack-a-doodle-doo opinions.
Evidence of Hillary's "guilt" is equally as tenuous and fanciful.
What's even more problematic is your insistence on continuing to bring up a topic--- attempting to use it as a bell weather--- which you have literally no knowledge about one way or another.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJust out of curiosity, why do you suppose people lie about a round earth?
What else could I have possibly been referencing in response to Suzianne's irrelevant off-topic comment?
Yes, the weight of evidence (that which counts as factual scientific evidence) points to a flat earth.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat people?
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose people lie about a round earth?
The majority of people who state the world is round are doing so on the basis of other's declarations.
There are very few who are in any kind of position to know.
Not sure what Freemasonry's stake in the game might be, but what an incredibly odd coincidence for all "astronauts" to have been part of that secret society, right?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI suggest you take your medicine in time for Nov. 8th.
What people?
The majority of people who state the world is round are doing so on the basis of other's declarations.
There are very few who are in any kind of position to know.
Not sure what Freemasonry's stake in the game might be, but what an incredibly odd coincidence for all "astronauts" to have been part of that secret society, right?