The Next President of the United States: III

[thunderbolt23]

I get it, it just doesn’t add up.

[zeb1]

@thunderbolt23

No, my memory is fine, as is everyone else’s who remembers your shameful attempt. But seriously, was Judge Jeanine the author of the email, or no?[/quote]

Shameful attempt? I quoted a line from a website. The line was incomplete. Hardly shameful. And not nearly as shameful as you attempting to resurrect this as some sort of horrible act. You are a joke TB.

Also re: “normal practice” of going “line by line”: yes, until I’ve determined that it’d be a waste of my time. If I elect not go line by line, it’s not because I can’t, it’s because I’ve gotten bored and don’t think it’s worth it.

That is what you’d like everyone to think. But, I have seen you do this with others who are getting the best of you. You go line by line until you have no answer for a certain line and then suddenly you claim that you have no time or some other dodge. You then skip over the debaters arguments and simply write a few lines mostly off the topic at hand. You are good at this and have gotten away with it for a while now. But not anymore huh Bub?

[quote]So, Judge Jeanine - author of the email? I’m genuinely curious.

What in the hell are you rambling about? What email?

Is this another of your dodges to change the subject from running away from our line by line debate?

[anon50325502]

@zeb1

But, I have seen you do this with others who are getting the best of you. You go line by line until you have no answer for a certain line and then suddenly you claim that you have no time or some other dodge. You then skip over the debaters arguments and simply write a few lines mostly off the topic at hand.

Seems pretty disingenuous Zeb. I’ve asked you three or four times now why Judge Jeanine has authority to speak on the Benghazi attack.

You skipped this whole post:

@anon50325502

Zeb: “I doubt you will find much where he is attacking, or even question the Clintons in a major way.”

usmc: These are all criticisms of Clinton, his Administration, and #5 is an attack on Clinton for sure:

1. Bill was often time unfocused 2) Bill didn’t provide closure to his staff leaving them blowing in the wind.3) The White House meetings were almost a “BS operation” 4) Bill’s lack of focus resulted in his inability to be clear with the American people at times. 5) “When you’re president of the United States, it was my view that the president has to be above that and that he can’t just suddenly grovel and look like he’s engaging in political warfare…”

[anon50325502]

I like Kasich, but he just needs to go.

[Sloth]

@pushharder

@Sloth

So is the Dresden and Sherman stuff being used to support Trump’s desire to kill women and children?

Dresden and Sherman are being used to exemplify how you keep losing your breakfast over one loud mouth guy who uses hyperbole in excess and with other buffoonish dunces that eat it up with a spoon of outrage while they remain quiet as church mice about the presumptive Democratic nominee and hundreds of other politicians whose actual actions dwarf those of the presumptive Republican nominee.

Like I said, it’s all about perspective. Some of you ain’t go none. Some of you hoist with your own petard. And when you do so the River of Buffoonish Duncery rages and boils with a comical intensity and sweeps you and your canoe over the falls.

Soooo…Are you down with deliberately targeting women and children? ARE YOU? TODAY?

[anon50325502]

No, Trump’s not wrong regarding what’s in the article. It’s how he wants to do it coupled with the extracurriculars (like how the military will commit war crimes because he says so) that makes him wrong, imo.

[zeb1]

@anon50325502

Seems pretty disingenuous Zeb. I’ve asked you three or four times now why Judge Jeanine has authority to speak on the Benghazi attack.

Didn’t even see the post sorry…eating lunch

Judge Judy is putting together the same argument that I did. If you are saying she has no right to speak on the topic I beg to differ. And I think I also referred you to a Watergate reporter who had “no right” to question why things were “occurring” but he did.

When one needs a title in order to have a valued opinion I think we are on the wrong side of justice.

Now back to you:
When I asked you why Hillary lied about the video being the reason for the attacks you simply said something like “she’s a liar”.

But as I said people need motive to lie. I gave you that motive and it is one that has been talked about by many much smarter than you or I.

You don’t believe the motive is that what you are saying?

Tell me.

[Sloth]

@thunderbolt23

Oh, that’s right, I forgot where I was.

"The gummint’s evil

Apparently not as Trump supporters favor giving government the power to wall us in on the south, to further stymie free(er) exchange of goods and labor across borders, to begin deliberately murdering women and children, while practicing torture.

[zeb1]

@pushharder

“If Cruz had won all of Rubio’s and Kasich’s votes together, however, he would have defeated Trump in Arizona.”

Makes me wonder if Kasich is staying in for VP to Trump. An odd couple to be sure but Trump said he would pick someone with government experience as his VP and Kasich certainly fits that bill.

[anon50325502]

I don’t understand the point of the article. It read to me like Breitbart is saying Washinton is a giant piece of shit while Donald is just a little piece of shit.

That’s not comforting and certainly doesn’t make me want to vote for him.

[Sloth]

@pushharder

@Sloth

Soooo…Are you down with deliberately targeting women and children? ARE YOU? TODAY?

I’m down with deliberately targeting buffoonish dunce Chicken Little’s. TODAY!

And YESTERDAY!

And TOMORROW!

(We should get together and watch Kill Bill 1 and 2. Do you have Surround Sound? Here’s the soundtrack for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b57KntD8thg

BUT ARE YOU DOWN WITH ORDERING OUR SOLDIEDRS–OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN–TO DELIBERATELY TAKE AIM AND SHOOT A CHILD IN THE DAMN FACE. ARE YOU?!

Sorry about the yelling, but what the f…How many times does a simple question about a presently running candidate today (one we in the present are to consider) have to be asked?