Commander in Chief Hillary?

[Sir Evil]

Is that correct? Or has he had a sand nigger in him? Or does like the underage sand niggers?

I guess it's his love for the middle east that leaves me to believe this but certain there has been an ample amount of youngters involved as well.

[retiredman]

Because, as scientific evidence suggests.............on the whole they ain't the brightest bulbs on the xmas tree.

and you wonder why they don't flock to YOUR side?

[OCA]

and you wonder why they don't flock to YOUR side?

So you believe that they are bright? Would you like me to show you test scores(name your state) (pick your year, they are all the same) that shows that Blacks consistently score the lowest?

[retiredman]

So you believe that they are bright? Would you like me to show you test scores(name your state) (pick your year, they are all the same) that shows that Blacks consistently score the lowest?

so because they have marginally lower scores on standardized tests, you think they are so stupid that they will continue to vote for democrats in overwhelming numbers even though democrats are bending them over a table top and forcibly raping them in the ass year after year after year?

What I believe is that race is not a predictable indicator of intelligence.... even though it may, in our society, be somewhat of an indicator as to education.

[glockmail]

you have "proven" shit. you claim that I came stalking you here ten minutes after you left USMB and I have yet to see you explain how in the world I would have a clue where, on the internet, you had gone when you left one site with your tail between your legs.
And thinking back...it wasn't really a case of you just "leaving" USMB, was it? You were permanently banned, as I recall.

why WAS that?

My accusation on post 57 was proven by OCA's post 63. Since you refuse to admit even after you've been caught pants-down, dick-in-hand that just shows how little credibility you have.

Its not up to me to "prove" how you found me here from USMB. The fact is that you did, a mere ten minutes or so after I left. I gave a theory on how you did that, and anyone familiar with the two boards can agree that it is very likely how you did it.

The reason I got banned from USMB is immaterial to the issue of your pedophiliac insults about my family, your subsequent stalking of me and your continued lies about both accusations.

[glockmail]

Because, as scientific evidence suggests.............on the whole they ain't the brightest bulbs on the xmas tree.

Although that is true, a better explanation is that it is human nature to support whoever is pandering to you. That also explains why the following are beholden to the Democrat Party: Hollywood, unions, poor, and felons.

[retiredman]

MY stalking of YOU????? Oh that is rich!

the fact is...I didn't stalk you anywhere.... I didn't "follow" you anywhere.... and if I made inferences as to your predeliction for young boys - as you have done to me - that was certainly an insult aimed at you and not at any of your victims!

[glockmail]

MY stalking of YOU????? Oh that is rich!

the fact is...I didn't stalk you anywhere.... I didn't "follow" you anywhere.... and if I made inferences as to your predeliction for young boys - as you have done to me - that was certainly an insult aimed at you and not at any of your victims!

Classic HFM:
1. Continued lie about stalking me despite facts presented and corraborated testimony.
2. Attempt to minimize the infraction by accusing me of doing the same. You directly accused me of having a homosexual relationship with my young son. This was not a simple "predeliction for young boys" insult. In return, I have repeatedly called you a pedophilia, as only a child molester would make up something as vile as you did.

You also lied about not remembering about what you wrote, as demonstrated by your post here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...4&postcount=34

[diuretic]

Mrs Clinton would be as ruthless as Dick Cheney as C in C.

[retiredman]

I agree...but being ruthless in pursuit of the objectives of the democratic party platform is not necessarily a bad thing.

[diuretic]

I agree...but being ruthless in pursuit of the objectives of the democratic party platform is not necessarily a bad thing.

True - if you're in politics you have to be prepared to stab in the back or grab at the throat, anything less isn't really trying. But there seems to be the idea being kicked around that Mrs Clinton would be a wuss when it comes to foreign policy. I have to disagree. I think she would be a hawk first and foremost. And being a bit of a hawk is necessary to a degree, I mean it wouldn't do for your president to be a sook. There's a lot to be said for the old iron fist in the velvet glove and I think she would be quite up to that. I've seen her speeches and she's quite formidable, no wonder Bill is shit scared of her. I don't like her one bit, but that's neither here nor there; what is apparent is she is up to the job. I just hope she doesn't get it.

[retiredman]

True - if you're in politics you have to be prepared to stab in the back or grab at the throat, anything less isn't really trying. But there seems to be the idea being kicked around that Mrs Clinton would be a wuss when it comes to foreign policy. I have to disagree. I think she would be a hawk first and foremost. And being a bit of a hawk is necessary to a degree, I mean it wouldn't do for your president to be a sook. There's a lot to be said for the old iron fist in the velvet glove and I think she would be quite up to that. I've seen her speeches and she's quite formidable, no wonder Bill is shit scared of her. I don't like her one bit, but that's neither here nor there; what is apparent is she is up to the job. I just hope she doesn't get it.

for the longterm makeup of the supreme court, if for no other reason, I think it is imperative that the democrat win in '08. Replacing Ginsberg and Stevens with two young Scalia clones would be frightening.

[glockmail]

Mrs Clinton would be as ruthless as Dick Cheney as C in C.

Too bad she wouldn't be ruthlessly supporting the interests of the People of the United States as enumerated in the Constitution.