HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

[pyropappy]

What I find hilarious, the HellBitch first disgraced herself during Nixon's impeachment. She will most likely suffer the same fate; resign in disgrace. Karma is a real bitch.

See previous page regarding the whole impeachment thing.

If you seriously think the American people will stand for her pardoning herself you are truly delusional. Karma is a bitch; Nixon contemplated pardoning himself too.

[Duchess]

She was fired from the judiciary committee investigating Nixon's impeachment for fraud.

And you wonder why we have these two to choose from? Look in a mirror.

No wonder I didn't know about it, it's not true. Jesus Christ. Go read about it, Pappy and don't be looking for it at infowars or someplace similar. Get some facts, get informed.

[BlueTiki]

She was fired from the judiciary committee investigating Nixon's impeachment for fraud.

And you wonder why we have these two to choose from? Look in a mirror.

No wonder I didn't know about it, it's not true. Jesus Christ. Go read about it, Pappy and don't be looking for it at infowars or someplace similar. Get some facts, get informed.

Not so fast . . .

Cato Institute Findings

It involved Nixon's right to legal counsel and omitting a case of precedent from her brief. Case involved the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Douglas.

[Blindgreed1]

What I find hilarious, the HellBitch first disgraced herself during Nixon's impeachment. She will most likely suffer the same fate; resign in disgrace. Karma is a real bitch.

See previous page regarding the whole impeachment thing.

If you seriously think the American people will stand for her pardoning herself you are truly delusional. Karma is a bitch; Nixon contemplated pardoning himself too.

Stand, sit, whatever... All I'm saying is she can't be impeached for crimes she committed prior to her presidency (if she wins), and she could pardon herself legally. It's the law however delusional you think that may be.

[Duchess]

It involved Nixon's right to legal counsel and omitting a case of precedent from her brief. Case involved the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Douglas.

Just from the little bit I've been able to glean in this short time it looks like the brief she wrote only addressed whether Nixon had the right to be represented by counsel at evidentiary hearings.

I'm just learning all this, bear with me! Be gentle.

[Duchess]

Goddamnit. Wrong person! Ugh. You win, I don't care enough to pursue the Judge.

[sally]

I just don't understand the logic behind saying if you don't vote you lose your right to complain. I see it the opposite, if you vote you lose your right to complain. You chose these assholes, not me. You picked one asshole over the other, not me. If anyone has the right to complain about either one it's me. It makes no sense to me at all when people say the reason they vote is so they have the right to complain.

I understand the logic. If you don't care enough to make your voice heard in the decision-making process, some people aren't gonna care much when you voice complaints about the results. It makes sense.

It makes more sense than your contention that people only vote because the news tells them to vote and they're retarded.............so, you choose to forfeit your vote, rely on retarded people to determine the outcome, bitch about the results, and then blame the retards. That's some lazy and flawed logic, sal (but kinda funny).

No, it does not make sense. If I don't like either candidate then why would I vote for either one? I made it clear that I don't like them, how is my voice going to be heard by being forced to pick one? And who are the people that are so important that it would somehow affect me if they cared or didn't care about my complaints anyway?

As far as the retards go, I'm not relying on them for anything. They will pick option A or B and either option will undoubtedly fuck something up for everyone. I can't control what the retards do.

[BlueTiki]

Goddamnit. Wrong person! Ugh. You win, I don't care enough to pursue the Judge.

Sweetie . . . this isn't a win or lose thing.

She was a young, ambitious attorney . . . and her superior thought she fucked up.

It is up to you to decide if the claim is true and how it reflects on her character.

Redemption or recidivism . . . your call.

[HairOfTheDog]

No, it does not make sense. If I don't like either candidate then why would I vote for either one? I made it clear that I don't like them, how is my voice going to be heard by being forced to pick one? And who are the people that are so important that it would somehow affect me if they cared or didn't care about my complaints anyway?

As far as the retards go, I'm not relying on them for anything. They will pick option A or B and either option will undoubtedly fuck something up for everyone. I can't control what the retards do.

Some people think you don't have a right to complain if you don't bother to participate, regardless as to whether you like the choices or not. I'm not one of those people, but it's not hard to understand the logic.

Maybe this analogy will help you to understand better, sal. You're going out to dinner with friends. You and your husband really like the nearby Chinese restaurant, but the others are in the mood for Indian or Mexican. It's 4 pm and you two are already halfway through a case of beer, so you say, "whatever you retards choose is fine with us." The Mexican place you really don't like gets 5 votes, the Indian place that sorta sucks gets 4 votes, so the 11 of you are off to the Wholly Guacamole.

Well, you all get food poisoning half way through dinner and end up losing your bowels all over the place. How embarrassing!

You and your husband start complaining because you didn't want to go to that shit hole in the first place. Everyone else calls you a couple of retards and tells you to stop your bitchin' and blamin' because if you'd participated in the decision making and convinced them to consider Chinese or settled for Indian, the night most likely would have been a whole lot less shitty for everyone.

If you still don't get the logic, fuck 'em. Just keep bitching and blaming other people, it's not against the law or anything.

[Maggot]

I would consider the down vote important if not more important than the presidential race. At least if a person writes a good enough letter to a Senator or Representative you have a better chance of getting a response.

[pyropappy]

And the cracks are forming...

Chicago Tribune

If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea.

Are the rats starting to jump ship?

[Blindgreed1]

Goddamnit. Wrong person! Ugh. You win, I don't care enough to pursue the Judge.

Sweetie . . . this isn't a win or lose thing.

She was a young, ambitious attorney . . . and her superior thought she fucked up.

It is up to you to decide if the claim is true and how it reflects on her character.

Redemption or recidivism . . . your call.

Regardless... It's pretty fucking ironic that she was part of the prosecution for the impeachment of Nixon for using his own recording device during his presidency. Isn't email a recording device? just sayin...

[pyropappy]

Regardless... It's pretty fucking ironic that she was part of the prosecution for the impeachment of Nixon for using his own recording device during his presidency. Isn't email a recording device? just sayin...

No. it's bloody fucking hilarious.

[ZEROSPHERES]

"As secretary of state, Clinton kept her home-brew email server, from which foreign intelligence agencies could hack top secret information, so she could shield the influence peddling that helped make the Clintons several fortunes. The Clintons weren't skilled merchants. They weren't traders or manufacturers. The Clintons never produced anything tangible. They had no science, patents or devices to make them millions upon millions of dollars. All they had to sell, really, was influence."

^^Exerpted from:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum...olumn.html

[blueberryhill]

HellBitch first disgraced herself during Nixon's impeachment.

What happened then, what did she do?

Seriously?

Aren't you giving a lot of power to a woman who was a 27 year old junior staff member at the time? Wow, usually, the junior staff weren't assigned that much power and to think she did it back in the day before we achieved equal rights for women.....very impressive.

[Duchess]

Heh. Look at everyone.

Hillary Clinton, the next President of the United States of America.

Muhahahaha!

I can hardly wait to rub some noses in it. I'm going to be even more insufferable than I am now!

[sally]

Maybe this analogy will help you to understand better, sal. You're going out to dinner with friends. You and your husband really like the nearby Chinese restaurant, but the others are in the mood for Indian or Mexican. It's 4 pm and you two are already halfway through a case of beer, so you say, "whatever you retards choose is fine with us." The Mexican place you really don't like gets 5 votes, the Indian place that sorta sucks gets 4 votes, so the 11 of you are off to the Wholly Guacamole.

Well, you all get food poisoning half way through dinner and end up losing your bowels all over the place. How embarrassing!

You and your husband start complaining because you didn't want to go to that shit hole in the first place. Everyone else calls you a couple of retards and tells you to stop your bitchin' and blamin' because if you'd participated in the decision making and convinced them to consider Chinese or settled for Indian, the night most likely would have been a whole lot less shitty for everyone.

If you still don't get the logic, fuck 'em. Just keep bitching and blaming other people, it's not against the law or anything.

The analogy would be more like this. There are only two restaurants open, Indian and Mexican. I tell my retarded friends that I've eaten at both places and they suck, but they insist on choosing one anyway. So while they go and eat I go down the street to the bar and order a beer and maybe a bar snack even though the bar snack doesn't count as a full meal and never will be a full meal, but it's better than what they're eating.

We meet back at my car and they puke all over it on the way home, so then I say I told you retards not to eat there so don't complain now. I'm the one who should be complaining, my car smells like a rancid enchilada now and I'm the one that has to pay to have it steamed cleaned.

[Maggot]

Yeah, that's right.

[HairOfTheDog]

The analogy would be more like this. There are only two restaurants open, Indian and Mexican. I tell my retarded friends that I've eaten at both places and they suck, but they insist on choosing one anyway. So while they go and eat I go down the street to the bar and order a beer and maybe a bar snack even though the bar snack doesn't count as a full meal and never will be a full meal, but it's better than what they're eating.

We meet back at my car and they puke all over it on the way home, so then I say I told you retards not to eat there so don't complain now. I'm the one who should be complaining, my car smells like a rancid enchilada now and I'm the one that has to pay to have it steamed cleaned.

Your analogy is perfect, sal, to illustrate YOUR point of view. But, I understood your point of view without needing an analogy.

I think probably about 40% of the U.S. population shares your view. Lots of able-minded people won't participate or make a weighted decision unless it's an easy and likable exercise for them, even in matters that affect their lives and the lives of their families. So, they say 'fuck it'. Some of them do so quietly, others attempt to justify their apathy by positioning themselves as righteous and smart for plopping their lazy asses on the sidelines and letting others determine the outcome. Then, if they don't like the results/consequences, they paint themselves as victims of the people who did choose to participate..............and they bitch, which is their right (as far as I'm concerned).

My analogy was meant to demonstrate the point of view of people who don't think you have a right to bitch and complain if you refuse to participate, the logic of which you claim you can't understand and doesn't make sense to you. I think it's pretty easy to understand that sensible point of view, whether you agree with it or not.

Anyway, now I'm craving homemade enchildas and guacamole.

[sally]

The analogy would be more like this. There are only two restaurants open, Indian and Mexican. I tell my retarded friends that I've eaten at both places and they suck, but they insist on choosing one anyway. So while they go and eat I go down the street to the bar and order a beer and maybe a bar snack even though the bar snack doesn't count as a full meal and never will be a full meal, but it's better than what they're eating.

We meet back at my car and they puke all over it on the way home, so then I say I told you retards not to eat there so don't complain now. I'm the one who should be complaining, my car smells like a rancid enchilada now and I'm the one that has to pay to have it steamed cleaned.

Your analogy is perfect, sal, to illustrate YOUR point of view. But, I understood your point of view without needing an analogy.

I think probably about 40% of the U.S. population shares your view. Lots of able-minded people won't participate or make a weighted decision unless it's an easy and likable exercise for them, even in matters that affect their lives and the lives of their families. So, they say 'fuck it'. Some of them do so quietly, others attempt to justify their apathy by positioning themselves as righteous and smart for plopping their lazy asses on the sidelines and letting others determine the outcome. Then, if they don't like the results/consequences, they paint themselves as victims of the people who did choose to participate..............and they bitch, which is their right (as far as I'm concerned).

My analogy was meant to demonstrate the point of view of people who don't think you have a right to bitch and complain if you refuse to participate, the logic of which you claim you can't understand and doesn't make sense to you. I think it's pretty easy to understand that sensible point of view, whether you agree with it or not.

Anyway, now I'm craving homemade enchildas and guacamole.

I know what your analogy meant, but when you describe the voters point of view you keep using the word lazy and insinuate that the non-voters allow everyone else to choose for them and then bitch about it. You find that a sensible point of view, I don't.

Refusing to vote for people you don't like doesn't equate to being lazy and allowing everyone else to make the decision. There's only two choices and one will inevitably win no matter what. If you weighed the pros and cons of both and equally dislike both then no one is making a choice for you because you wouldn't choose either.

You make it sound as if all the voters are making an extremely hard choice between Satan 1 and Satan 2 and taking one for the team and the non-voters are just sitting back saying fuck it. When in reality most voters are strictly for one party and they will defend their choice to their death never admitting the candidate they voted for was a total fuck up, but if the other party won then you'll hear their complaints alright.

So my opinion still stands, if non-voters can't complain then neither should voters. I don't even give a shit who complains, but I only hear that line of thinking from the voters which is why I brought it up.