quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

pftttt stein has more chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

damn... good gif....I have to steal that
sorry polls arent convincing me of anything this far out.. Id rather see more real education on the issues
talk to me in october.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
LMAO @ Change the goalposts, dont forget women presidents are not a novelty to anyone living outside the US.
Also listen closely to the actual definition of her historical step, its NOT a "goalpost" move.
She became the first woman nominated for the presidency by a major party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/hillary-clinton-makes-history.html
I would rather it was someone else, but it aint.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I dont think trump will be at the debates.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
LMAO @ Change the goalposts, dont forget women presidents are not a novelty to anyone living outside the US.
Also listen closely to the actual definition of her historical step, its NOT a "goalpost" move.
She became the first woman nominated for the presidency by a major party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/hillary-clinton-makes-history.html
I would rather it was someone else, but it aint.

It's been changed to major party as I noted in the post you're replying to.

The "historic" part of this is being trumpeted to sway voters, just like in 2008 when the media went nuts over the historic nomination of a black candidate (even though he was far from the first black candidate to be nominated, he was the first to be nominated by a "major" party).

While I'm not saying there's anything not historic about her (or Barack) being the first nominated by a major party, I AM saying that being an argument to get others to vote for her (or Barack) is vacuous at best.

Furthermore, if you vote for or against Hillary because she is a woman, or you voted for or against Barack Obama because he is black, you have lengthened the time frame before MLK's dream can be achieved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And I have stated many times since 2008 Voting for a woman for that reason is stupid.
More than a few times, look up on my comments on campbell or Thatcher.
I would never vote for a woman because of her biology.

quote:

Please dont preach to me about MLKs dream. Racism is strong as ever. And its NOT because people are voting for women or black men.
Cheeky fuck

quote:

Oh, and btw, when I said that I dont think donald will be at the debates, because only HE will make it interesting. It has nothing to do with Johnson.
But Im so Sorry Im not as confused as you think I am.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And I have stated many times since 2008 Voting for a woman for that reason is stupid.
More than a few times, look up on my comments on campbell or Thatcher.
I would never vote for a woman because of her biology.

Never said you didn't. However, the "historical" context of both elections was used, is being used, and will be used in the media in support of Hillary.

quote:

Please dont preach to me about MLKs dream. Racism is strong as ever. And its NOT because people are voting for women or black men.
Cheeky fuck

Yet, when candidates are pushed using historical context based on genitalia or skin color, it only adds to the racism that is still around. I truly believe you're wrong that it's as strong as ever, though.

quote:

Oh, and btw, when I said that I dont think donald will be at the debates, because only HE will make it interesting. It has nothing to do with Johnson.
But Im so Sorry Im not as confused as you think I am.

I see. So, you replied to a post with a response that doesn't have much at all to do with that post. Maybe you are that confused.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


I have heard, from a woman who used to live there that racism is worse in Canada than the U S. Of course it could be she lived in a bad pocket in Canada. Also my 3rd wife went to Detroit and said she saw more racism in one weekend than she had in 40 years in NC. I guess since I have lived in the south for the last 35 years I think it is getting better because I grew up in the north which was far more racist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And I have stated many times since 2008 Voting for a woman for that reason is stupid.
More than a few times, look up on my comments on campbell or Thatcher.
I would never vote for a woman because of her biology.

Never said you didn't. However, the "historical" context of both elections was used, is being used, and will be used in the media in support of Hillary.
What you said was

quote:

Furthermore, if you vote for or against Hillary etc etc

Are you confused? I cant vote...

quote:

Please dont preach to me about MLKs dream. Racism is strong as ever. And its NOT because people are voting for women or black men.
Cheeky fuck

Yet, when candidates are pushed using historical context based on genitalia or skin color, it only adds to the racism that is still around. I truly believe you're wrong that it's as strong as ever, though.

dont believe everything you think, minorities are angry for a reason, and its more than just ignorance about blacks this time, its ignorance about all minorities.
The racism AND sexism IS worse, especially coming from the right, note the resurgence of white hate groups, just look at trumps hate comments, oh and David Duke inspired to run for senate again. Lovely
People screaming about BLM marching in protest of police brutality, but they thought it was ok the bundys were armed and took over a govmnt building

quote:

Oh, and btw, when I said that I dont think donald will be at the debates, because only HE will make it interesting. It has nothing to do with Johnson.
But Im so Sorry Im not as confused as you think I am.

I see. So, you replied to a post with a response that doesn't have much at all to do with that post. Maybe you are that confused.

Have you heard of a throwaway? Ifmaz couldnt even name him, I knew he was talking about Johnson, my response was a throwaway line but no, its my belief at the moment that Trump will not get on a stage with Hils, so the crazy wont be there,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
have you watched this speech yet??? you can start about the three minute mark if you want to miss the intro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z7lN7nQjG0

Muslim Americans in the American Military who died in war? It means nothing to me. If they chose to join the military, they jolly well be prepared to sacrifice their life in war, after all, betrayal would mean, their military commander would just shoot them anyway for treason. (Okay, they would in my country's military, not sure about the US one)

And this dude is exaggerating. Trump wants to find a way to let harmless Muslims in and keep bad Muslims out.
Another exaggerated BS.
So if he was a good Muslim, he would have been able to enter America eventually, once they figure a better vetting process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And I have stated many times since 2008 Voting for a woman for that reason is stupid.
More than a few times, look up on my comments on campbell or Thatcher.
I would never vote for a woman because of her biology.

Never said you didn't. However, the "historical" context of both elections was used, is being used, and will be used in the media in support of Hillary.
What you said was

quote:

Furthermore, if you vote for or against Hillary etc etc

Are you confused? I cant vote...

quote:

quote:

Please dont preach to me about MLKs dream. Racism is strong as ever. And its NOT because people are voting for women or black men.
Cheeky fuck

Yet, when candidates are pushed using historical context based on genitalia or skin color, it only adds to the racism that is still around. I truly believe you're wrong that it's as strong as ever, though.
dont believe everything you think, minorities are angry for a reason, and its more than just ignorance about blacks this time, its ignorance about all minorities.
The racism AND sexism IS worse, especially coming from the right, note the resurgence of white hate groups, just look at trumps hate comments, oh and David Duke inspired to run for senate again. Lovely
People screaming about BLM marching in protest of police brutality, but they thought it was ok the bundys were armed and took over a govmnt building

quote:

THE HISTORIC MOMENT. The 2008 campaign was shaped in part by the historic opportunity to elect the first African American president, and in 2016 the prospect of the first woman president will certainly motivate many voters (men as well as women). Some Republican women and others who might not particularly care for Clinton are likely vote for her for this reason. The question is, how many? A larger number, particularly among Democrats, will be extraordinarily enthusiastic participants in the election process, egged on by the misogynistic comments that Trump is almost certain to keep making during the course of the campaign. Whatever voters’ feelings about Clinton herself, the idea of a woman as president will do much to shape the election results.

quote:

quote:

Oh, and btw, when I said that I dont think donald will be at the debates, because only HE will make it interesting. It has nothing to do with Johnson.
But Im so Sorry Im not as confused as you think I am.

I see. So, you replied to a post with a response that doesn't have much at all to do with that post. Maybe you are that confused.
Have you heard of a throwaway? Ifmaz couldnt even name him, I knew he was talking about Johnson, my response was a throwaway line but no, its my belief at the moment that Trump will not get on a stage with Hils, so the crazy wont be there,

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Im sorry , when you are responding ONLY to my post. I do take it that YOU means me.
Lots of people do, it seems. Maybe I need to write to Oxford or Websters, that You doesnt mean You anymore, its always generic.
If you want to be persnikkety, go right ahead, Im in the right mood for that kind of idiocy

quote:

By the way, I completely understand that my comment had nothing to do with a non crazy man
I didnt say it did, its you thats been having the conniption

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


The call has gone out, from the DNC, on Craigslist. They're looking for up to 700 "seat fillers" for the last night of the convention.

They're paying $50.00 per person.

I suck at math but I ran the numbers: the convention gavels in, no later than 17.00 hrs. It goes until at least 23.00. Six hours (being very conservative) at $50.00 Isn't even $10.00 hour. They're bitching about $15.00 per hour?

Show some integrity and lead by example. Oooops! I forgot. We're talking about dumbocrats, here.



Michael