When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

@Krumple,

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and has feathers, than it must be a duck.

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and has feathers, than it must be a duck.

That is just stupid as for usual. You dont know my political stance yet want to assume you do. Just making one statement doesnt mean you know where to put me. I find it funny that you think you are justified doing so. So you assume you are hearing a duck because you dont actually check.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

4607 posts tend to tell much about a poster.

1 Reply

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

The best working journalist shows Hillary is paranoid or, wait for it, a liar.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

4607 posts tend to tell much about a poster.

Maybe but you are still clueless of my political stance.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote Krumple:

Quote:

Then tell me where I support the idea that contraceptives for women shouldn't be publically paid for through healthcare? Tell me.

Okay. I made the proposal for free birth control right here:
Quote Blickers:

Quote:

Yet the Left wants to make birth control available for free, (a great investment to prevent unwanted pregnancy). It's the Right who wants to prevent women from having access to free birth control.

To which you answered, in the next post:
Quote Krumple:

Quote:

Im well aware. The left love social programs where everyone is forced to chip in to be responsible for others choices.

When your answer to a proposal is single sentence which puts down of some aspect of the proposal, it generally counts as a "No" on the whole proposal.

After that, you came back with your insane counter-proposal, which was to temporarily sterilize everyone until they can financially show they can support their children. So that's where you said you weren't in favor of free birth control.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote Krumple:

Quote:
Then tell me where I support the idea that contraceptives for women shouldn't be publically paid for through healthcare? Tell me.

Okay. I made the proposal for free birth control right here:
Quote Blickers:

Quote:
Yet the Left wants to make birth control available for free, (a great investment to prevent unwanted pregnancy). It's the Right who wants to prevent women from having access to free birth control.

To which you answered, in the next post:
Quote Krumple:

Quote:
Im well aware. The left love social programs where everyone is forced to chip in to be responsible for others choices.

When your answer to a proposal is single sentence which puts down of some aspect of the proposal, it generally counts as a "No" on the whole proposal.

After that, you came back with your insane counter-proposal, which was to temporarily sterilize everyone until they can financially show they can support their children. So that's where you said you weren't in favor of free birth control.

The very idea of temporary sterilization IS free birth control. It just takes it another step by preventing irresponsible people from having children they cant afford, pushing the responsibilty onto tax payers.

Im all for free birth control, it just isnt enough.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote Krumple:

Quote:

The very idea of temporary sterilization IS free birth control.

Oh please. As all you conservatives have been saying since the Paleolithic: "There is no such thing as a free sterilization-somebody's paying for it".

2 Replies

@Blickers,

I remember a tech I worked with being for sterilisation. She was nuts in other ways too.

Good at chess, though.

Hey, is that you, Krumple?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote Krumple:

Quote:
The very idea of temporary sterilization IS free birth control.

Oh please. As all you conservatives have been saying since the Paleolithic: "There is no such thing as a free sterilization-somebody's paying for it".

Sure in this case free meant tax payer forced temporary sterilization. You know similar to being forced to save for your retirement and healthcare.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Lash doesn't understand history. Our economy does better under democratic presidents. That means everybody benefits, not only the wealthy.

The "wealthy" being those people heavily invested in the military industrial complex, who profit from endless invasions of sovereign nations. Will you blame these people when a real foe comes a-calling, CI?

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

Builder is spouting some inane nonsense.

Buddy, you're backing Hillary Clinton. That's the most inane thing I could imagine. If she had an ounce of credibility left after the truth came out about Sanders and the DNC, she would have nothing to worry about with Trump.

I kind of gave you some credit for intelligence earlier on in our short online relationship here, but that's clearly misguided on my behalf. I apologise for that.

Quote:

He's clearly equating Trump's gutter language and behavior to the
sex-fantasy fiction 50 shades of gray

Is that what it's about? I've neither read the book, nor watched the movie.

Simply picked up a meme on social media about it.

0 Replies

Quote:

I've neither read the book, nor watched the movie.

Simply picked up a meme on social media about it.

...and ran with it just as if it was a salient, valid point. So, not guilty by reason of "I seen it on the interweb". Brilliant.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Shh. Don't tell anybody.

0 Replies

http://assets.amuniversal.com/f659c33072260134d6e3005056a9545d.gif

In fact Hillary is looking better every day.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Brilliant suggestion, outside of the fact that if it was adopted 2,000 years ago the human race would have ceased to exist.

This bothers me. Why in the world would you even think this? Seriously.

If only they banned guns 2,000 years ago, we wouldn't have so much gun violence.
If they only banned cigarettes 2,000 years ago, the human race would have as much lung cancer.

I mean you've just gone off the deep end. Is it because you had a picture that kind of , sort of had something to do with the subject?

2 Replies

The underbelly of the Democrat machine is dirtier and more extensive than our worst imagination. I think she may be indicted, and she'll have plenty of like-minded cell mates.

You are aware that her constant attempts to blame Russia for what she wrote is going to lead to a US/Russia conflagration? Her no-fly zone bullshit will necessitate shooting down Russian planes, to bring on the reality of her ultimate goal. A war that never ends.

It's lucrative for her, the ultimate arms dealer.

You're voting for George Bush on steroids.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/wikileaks_podesta_emails_reveal_the_power_behind_the_clinton_campaign_

1 Reply

@Lash,

LOL. Maybe if you don't look at it, it's not real!!! Cowards.

Lash wrote:

The underbelly of the Democrat machine is dirtier and more extensive than our worst imagination. I think she may be indicted, and she'll have plenty of like-minded cell mates.

You are aware that her constant attempts to blame Russia for what she wrote is going to lead to a US/Russia conflagration? Her no-fly zone bullshit will necessitate shooting down Russian planes, to bring on the reality of her ultimate goal. A war that never ends.

It's lucrative for her, the ultimate arms dealer.

You're voting for George Bush on steroids.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/wikileaks_podesta_emails_reveal_the_power_behind_the_clinton_campaign_

1 Reply

@Lash,

This is where you make the most sense, Lash. On the sidelines, holding a "Lock her up!" sign. Making scary sounding noises; fending off total irrelevance. It suits you.
And - bonus! You get to do it for at least 4 more years.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote McGentrix:

Quote:

This bothers me. Why in the world would you even think this? Seriously.

If only they banned guns 2,000 years ago, we wouldn't have so much gun violence.
If they only banned cigarettes 2,000 years ago, the human race would have as much lung cancer.

I mean you've just gone off the deep end. Is it because you had a picture that kind of , sort of had something to do with the subject?

Krumple's proposal is to sterilize everyone and then only reverse the process when they can produce verification that they can support a child. This is the proposal you are backing.
The chart below illustrates that from the year zero, (and before that, no doubt), almost NOBODY could really afford a child:

http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah279/LeviStubbs/world%20income%20and%20population_zpslzdarotv.jpg

So, if we followed Krumple's insane proposal, the human race would only allow the top 1% to procreate, since they would be the only ones who could really afford it. Considering the rates of disease and war, that would have led to declining populations, then reduction to a few scraggly bands of survivors, then the plug gets pulled permanently on Homo Sapiens. Really, that is the way it works out.

So aside from conservatives embracing totalitarianism, your post reveals that conservatism has not only become anti-science, it is rapidly becoming anti-arithmetic.

2 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know