Pretty sure Bill Clinton's doodles prove Guccifer hacked into Hillary's server.

a reply to: jimmyx

Here is a news flash for you, it isn't just 'right wingers'.
Plenty of Bernie supporters want her out of the race and in prison.

a reply to: jimmyx

Nobody ever informed me I had wings.

From hither forth I shall flap the left and right in unison so as to rise above the paradigm.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

If you are anti-Hillary, you must hate women and work for Fox News.

Sean Hannity, is that you?

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: jimmyx

Nobody ever informed me I had wings.

From hither forth I shall flap the left and right in unison so as to rise above the paradigm.

No. You only have a RIGHT wing. You cannot flap that which you do not have.

Or, drink a Red Bull. I hear it gives you wings too.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: jimmyx

Here is a news flash for you, it isn't just 'right wingers'.
Plenty of Bernie supporters want her out of the race and in prison.

out of the race?....sure....in prison?.....no

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: pl3bscheese

If you are anti-Hillary, you must hate women and work for Fox News.

Sean Hannity, is that you?

so your definition of "anti-Hillary" is....hates women and works for Fox news....ok got it

a reply to: jimmyx

You make when laugh when you're not supporting fascist progressives trying to destroy freedoms.

originally posted by: jimmyx
I just love how she gets under the skin of the you right-wingers here. it's become comical, and at the same time sad

I'm not right-wing. My political views are probably the opposite of many on this forum, especially on economics. Probably the same on matters of gun rights and the like.

I support Trump in the US elections because he's one of the few who are against the Establishment. I like a number of his ideas too, though i disagree with him on a few key points.

And my list for disliking Hillary is fairly extensive. I've known she's a nasty piece of work since 2009.

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Depends what your definition of is, is.

originally posted by: jimmyx
I just love how she gets under the skin of the you right-wingers here. it's become comical, and at the same time sad

It's more remarkable that a woman of such renowned criminality does not bother you though.

So you have no problem with people known to commit crimes, lies, perjury, and even murder in positions of authority.

But we already knew that about you. Says a lot about lack of character and morals though. Birds of a feather flock together.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It's more remarkable that a woman of such renowned criminality does not bother you though.

She's never been convicted of a crime.

So you have no problem with people known to commit crimes, lies, perjury, and even murder in positions of authority.

No doubt she has lied, but when was she convicted of a crime, perjury or even murder?

But we already knew that about you. Says a lot about lack of character and morals though. Birds of a feather flock together.

Who are you to judge others when you just lied about Hillary Clinton?

Hypocrite?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: jimmyx
I just love how she gets under the skin of the you right-wingers here. it's become comical, and at the same time sad

It's more remarkable that a woman of such renowned criminality does not bother you though.

So you have no problem with people known to commit crimes, lies, perjury, and even murder in positions of authority.

But we already knew that about you. Says a lot about lack of character and morals though. Birds of a feather flock together.

renowned criminality?.....yeah, I guess my "LACK of character and morals" insist that I withhold judgment on someone accused of a crime, until the evidence is presented in a court of law, and a conviction is handed down......

a reply to: introvert

Could you be more full of it?
I've never lied about Hillary.

It is also irrelevant that no convictions have happened. Why? Because we all know she is guilty of lots of crimes.

Having no convictions doesn't mean she isn't guilty of committing crimes, and it also doesn't mean anyone should support her just because no convictions.
Some rapists have got off Scott free, so because they weren't convicted, then you will support them too?

Get a dose of reality sonny.. Your arguments have no value.

good source with links to proof .....

Hillary Shared An Email Network With The Clinton Foundation

same IP address.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
She's never been convicted of a crime.

Neither was OJ. But he was still guilty.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: jimmyx
I just love how she gets under the skin of the you right-wingers here. it's become comical, and at the same time sad

It's more remarkable that a woman of such renowned criminality does not bother you though.

So you have no problem with people known to commit crimes, lies, perjury, and even murder in positions of authority.

But we already knew that about you. Says a lot about lack of character and morals though. Birds of a feather flock together.

renowned criminality?.....yeah, I guess my "LACK of character and morals" insist that I withhold judgment on someone accused of a crime, until the evidence is presented in a court of law, and a conviction is handed down......

Go ahead and call it "withholding judgment" What it really is, is supporting a known liar, dishonest scumbag, all because she is too connected politically and financially for charges to be brought against her, not because she is innocent.
And also it's because you think she supports some of your pet liberal agendas, which is why you really support Hillary. I can see right through your BS and so can everyone else.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Could you be more full of crap? I've never lied about Hillary.

Yes you did. You said she was "a woman of such renowned criminality".

She has never been convicted of a crime.

It is also irrelevant that no convictions have happened. Why? Because we all know she is guilty of lots of crimes.

Not only is that a logical fallacy, specifically an alleged certainty fallacy, she has not been convicted of a crime. A conviction is necessary.

Having no convictions doesn't mean she isn't guilty of committing crimes, and it also doesn't mean anyone should support her just because no convictions. Some rapists have got off Scott free, so because they weren't convicted, then you will support them too?

Support is irrelevant. I would still not call them a criminal unless they were convicted.

Get a dose of reality sonny.. Your arguments have no value.

I'm sure it doesn't have any value to someone that will lie about people and use logical fallacies, which have no place in a logical debate. But we all know (yes, i used your own logical fallacy) logic is rare round these parts.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
She's never been convicted of a crime.

Neither was OJ. But he was still guilty.

Can you prove that?

If not, ridiculous example.

a reply to: introvert

Al Capone had also never been convicted of any crime up until his tax evasion trial which was his undoing, but EVERYONE KNEW OF HIS RENOWNED CRIMINALITY WITHOUT ANY PRIOR CONVICTIONS.

See how that works now? Get educated