Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again in the scheme of things it's not important. I've said that many times. He called her cankles waaaahhhhh
Speaking of important
I must have missed where you took Hillary to task for taking money from a country that penalizes rape victims. Please repost that for me. I wouldn't want to misrepresent you.
Your inactions on not chastising the sleaziness of Hillary taking money from the Saudis yet make a big deal about a comment that is in no way a big deal prove either your hypocrisy or your inability to know whats important or both on this issue.
Keep trying though.
So misogyny is not a big deal in your view. Thanks for clarifying.
As a woman, it is a big deal to me. But it comes as no surprise that the right will condone sexist slurs to denigrate the leading candidate on the left. And when they are called on it, they will deflect, deflect, deflect in order to not have to address it. As you have done again and again and again in this thread.
Turns out I wasn't misrepresenting you after all.
And here I will end my participation in this threadjack. Feel free to continue to deflect without me. It's what you do best.
So misogyny is not a big deal in your view. Thanks for clarifying.
The poster made a comment. That is not misogyny. Falsely testifying for me again. Gee go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
As a woman, it is a big deal to me.
The comment isn't a big deal. However taking millions from a country that punishes rape victims is. Yet you wont comment on Hillary doing that. My how hypocritical of you. In a thread about Hillary you ignore her repulsive actions and try to make it about something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
But it comes as no surprise that the right will condone sexist slurs to denigrate the leading candidate on the left.
It comes as no surprise you are lying about my beliefs. Truth is treason to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
And when they are called on it, they will deflect, deflect, deflect in order to not have to address it.
No one has been called on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
As you have done again and again and again in this thread.
No I haven't and you've shown no proof
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
Turns out I wasn't misrepresenting you after all.
Yes you are and you're doing it again. Your posts on this subject are pathetic
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
And here I will end my participation in this threadjack.
It's about Hillary as was my comment about how she takes millions from a country that abuses women. Yet you won't comment on that. Why do you hate women? See what I did there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
Feel free to continue to deflect without me.
I'm not deflecting. I'm posting about Hillary in a thread about Hillary. You're not. My how hypocritical of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
It's what you do best.
What I do best is the truth and focus on what's important. Try it sometime.
My theory is Hillary is so corrupt that her campaign has to decided to put everything on the table in an attempt to immunize her.
Or maybe you libs just hate her...ya got me. So why are you folks trying so hard to derail her campaign - all the while blaming the GOP and trying to keep your bloody hands clean.
Really--you don't get it? It's called a general election. Your first? Candidates and interest groups attack other candidates in the same party. Happens every four years. Perhaps you are one of those that paints all Dems as alike and wanting the same candidate? You would be incorrect. Just like the GOP individuals and interest groups make different choices and attack the other republican candidates. Unless, of course, your "ya got me" is simply a disingenuous comment to disguise the pretense that the actual reason for this thread and to start yet another negative Hillary Clinton thread.
So you approve of denigrating a female candidate purely on her looks? Why am I not surprised. Margaret Thatcher was no prom queen, and she had thick ankles, too, but I don't recall any Conservatives calling her cankles, do you?
no, that would be Hillary, who doesnt seem to have a problem taking money from countries where its ok to utterly abuse their women.
How degrading do you have to be to not call it for what it is? Clearly not that far down the chain, just register as a Democrat and all of a sudden taking money from countries where things like stoning women alive is fine and dandy along with pedophilia which is quietly celebrated..
So misogyny is not a big deal in your view. Thanks for clarifying.
As a woman, it is a big deal to me.
But clearly not that big of a deal that you'd object to a candidate that takes money from countries who think its all fine to treat women like 2nd class citizens..
The comment isn't a big deal. However taking millions from a country that punishes rape victims is. Yet you wont comment on Hillary doing that. My how hypocritical of you. In a thread about Hillary you ignore her repulsive actions and try to make it about something else.
Yes you are and you're doing it again. Your posts on this subject are pathetic
I'm completely astounded by women who get mad at other posters for calling Hillary out for taking money from countries that treat women like this..
They are the lowest scum of the earth.. I guess it doesnt matter how other women are treated, long as they dont have to be subjected to it, then who cares.
Same attitude with ACA.. yep, they got their subsidy, so anyone else who got screwed by ACA doesnt exist..
Liberals, complete embarrassment to this country. I sometimes think stoning should be legal here just so they can find something real to object to since they clearly dont mind it happening in countries who give Clintons money. I guess if its ok there, then why not here..
Liberals, complete embarrassment to this country. I sometimes think stoning should be legal here just so they can find something real to object to since they clearly dont mind it happening in countries who give Clintons money. I guess if its ok there, then why not here..
Lol...they can pi$$ you off. What's worse is we now have DC bureaucracies stuffed full of these people that will be influencing policy long after Obama's left office. Liberals like the parasite state...I'm thinking if you can't beat them become one.
no, that would be Hillary, who doesnt seem to have a problem taking money from countries where its ok to utterly abuse their women.
How degrading do you have to be to not call it for what it is? Clearly not that far down the chain, just register as a Democrat and all of a sudden taking money from countries where things like stoning women alive is fine and dandy along with pedophilia which is quietly celebrated..
I think she will lose Virginia, West Virginia and possibly Ohio.
West Virginia is a little more right leaning but I don't see Virginia and Ohio going. Pls it depends on the candidate. I don't think a conservative candidate will bring enough to the polls that decided to not vote R.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
