...and my fingers were crossed behind my back too so...

Dammit man, and me sleeping on and off all day with this cold.

That was me yesterday, still feel like crap!

It needs two drywall technicians and master plasterer to get her out the door in the morning.

uldem.jpg (click to show) ...dumping my old hillary memes here

The face is a lie!

ror1u.jpg (click to show) come on, hillary doesn't take blame!

this looks like a good thread to dump my hillary memes in.... qopcp.jpg (click to show)

Classic Clinton! Lmao!

but ya know, Daweasel's meme from down the page a bit, well, it's epic!

zk4om.jpg (click to show)

It is! I have to go through the new meme thread... !

old, but relevant....wgj5l.jpg (click to show)

You inspired this one sitting in submission hell imgflip.com/i/zjewa

:) I sent help!

upvoted

You ask for it!

Okay now, THAT is just wrong!! Lmao!

Lol one of my first memes was this guy and something about the song hungry eye.

I'm still trying to recover from seeing it the first time, and then I have to see it AGAIN to read your reply. I won't be checking any more replys on this one... :)

Better not be

You gotta submit, it's epic!

:)

Even democrats are recognizing them in droves. Nothing I say or link to would be taken seriously by anyone willing to ignore them. So I will not do the research for you and if you really care whether or not she is a liar you can do your own research and accept or dismiss the evidence at will.

Keep dodging.

Really... I am going to change your mind??? I seriously doubt it. If you can't admit that she lied to the American people and the soldiers families after the Benghazi attacks then you will not believe anything that anyone links or uses for proof. Her own emails to Chelsea have proved the lies. She can't even say "I have never lied to the American people" outright. She had to use lawyer doublespeak to cover her ass.

What lie about Benghazi attacks, be specific ( I'll point out to you that it is you who is not admitting the facts by pointing you to the link below and telling you to read it).
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-benghazi-attack/748/

Nice citation, a report generated in 2014, based on information gathered in 2012/2013 all predating the discovery of her personal server which "never had classified" information and also is missing 33,000 deleted emails. As I stated, nothing I say including the previous statements will change your mind. This blind loyalty is what allows these political animals (and I include a LOT of republicans in that as well) to keep getting away with the crap they get away with.

Again dodging-- you claim lies about Benghazi, and yet can state none (because you know that the Senate report proves you false).

As I said, nothing I say will change your mind or your blind loyalty. I find this exercise in futility tedious, much the same as I did years ago with the Bill supporters who spent forever saying Monica never happened.

LOL, Low blow invoking Bill? Probably, I debated not doing that for that very reason, but it does illustrate a tactical familial pattern.

Unfortunately for fans of the smear campaign strategy of Atwater and his scion Rove, the internet makes it easy for facts to be presented... and only the radical extremes will ignore the presented and provable facts, whereas the masses of moderates embrace said facts.
.

"Nothing" is exactly what you've presented as evidence, lol-- you just keep saying "she lied" and ignoring the facts presented (again: read the Senate report) because they go against your claim. this is why you won't specify a lie and post a link to facts, you'll just say "emails" and "Benghazi".
You are doing what is known as "projecting"-- claiming someone else is doing what you yourself are actually doing.

Nice!!! Page 2 of the playbook!!! Well done! The personal attack. I don't link to evidence because you will dismiss it or ignore it anyway, which just adds to the tedium and the wasting of time.

... then, you claim a personal attack, lol, good one. Specify the personal attack you are alleging I made, as none is evident in that post.

Lol, emails-- you realize that zero have been found that were classified at that time, right? It's driving radical rightwing propaganda sites nuts that they have to admit it...
"None of Clinton’s emails was marked as classified during her tenure, State Department officials say"
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2016/02/20/at-least-1730-clinton-emails-contain-classified-material/

You still ignore what has been testified to by members of the Obama administration that have stated information does not have to be marked classified to be classified and to not recognize this either shows indifference or incompetence.

Lol, dodge away, sounds like a passage from "1984".
Again-- nothing was marked as classified when received. And if it is considered classified now, the question becomes "so what?" To pretend that this is some big lie is to ignore the fact that Bush, Powell, Cheney, Rice, et cetera ad nauseum used personal or WORSE, public emails and sent and received material that is now deemed "classified" over those.

It is a non-issue with moderate voters, and bringing it up drives more into her camp.

This ranting about "Benghazi" and "emails" while avoiding the actual issues is why the GOP's only chance in the election is Rubio and why Clinton will likely be President for the next two terms.

Certainly, trustworthiness should NEVER be a an issue. Its the classic Clinton "stall until it is old news". Just because a lot of people loose interest, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

This is what is known as "begging the question"-- you skip over the fact that you cannot back up your "emails" and "Benghazi" "lies" claims, so you pretend that your claims are true and imagine that you have established that "trustworthiness" is an issue over said alleged "lies".

I believe the accusation is that I am a liar. It's okay, I don't take what political opposition says personally anyway, its just interesting to see the techniques in play.

Not sure where you are getting that accusation from lol.

I quote you: "You are doing what is known as "projecting"-- claiming someone else is doing what you yourself are actually doing."

Yes-- that is what you have been doing, claiming that "Nothing I say or link to would be taken seriously by anyone willing to ignore them" ... and then doing exactly that (see: Senate report).
"Projecting" does not mean "lying".

In context that as how it appeared to me. I still maintain that anything I say today would change your mind. This is an incorrect assessment?

Saying that is your path to "begging the question", and it is false-- I worship facts, no matter where they fall. That is why I am still not sure who I will vote for, Hillary or Marco-- yes both (actually ALL politicians) have actually been "pants on fire" (see link below), but those are cases of sneaky pol speaking with fudging, not straight-up lying that the far right is trying to throw on Hillary. If one claims "Hillary is a liar" with a smear campaign, then every single candidate is also, so any "trustworthiness" issue is a non-issue unless one just isn't voting.

So far in this election I am leaning toward Hillary because of Marco's being anti-science with respect to Evolution and anthropogenic climate change.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/fact-checking-2016-gop-presidential-candidates/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/fact-checking-2016-democratic-presidential-candida/

I respect that you look at candidates from both sides and I will agree there has been a lot of lying either way. My previous statement should have read that it would "not" change your mind. My distrust of Hillary goes back a lot of years, she has always used political/lawyer doublespeak which immediately predisposes me to distrust. I have to take what she says in context with what members of her own administration have said and process the two. The Senate report you cite, as a recommendation, recommends not continuing to distribute incorrect information. Pages 36/37 also state that flawed information was provided to congress. Add in the redactions in the document I do not see it as having cleared Hillary at all. Even Obama appointees such as Leon Panetta have come out and said even if the documents were not marked classified, a secretary of state would have known that they were. There have been plenty I have heard interviewed that have stated the same which does make it difficult to cite particular documents and something I don't feel the need to do. The information is out there if anyone wants to look, but perhaps I am just too lazy to look for it and catalog it appropriately.

Don't waste your breath. Anyone that backs Hillary is suffering from an acute form of mental illness called post-modern Progressive Liberalism. There is no cure, save for what you see happening on The Walking Dead.

"because of Marco's being anti-science with respect to Evolution and anthropogenic climate change."
Oh, and also because his tax plan as interpreted by people so far (it's a bit vague so far) is absolutely insane-- it would totally untax capital gains. Thus Buffett and the Kochs and Bill gates and other billionaires would pay basically zero tax.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/02/08/Here-s-Problem-Rubio-s-Plan-Kill-Capital-Gains-Tax