Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 10 of 46
"Heh - the mask slips, the troll is revealed."
Said the kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll who's been very stupidly trolling me to discuss something I didn't post.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Heh - the mask slips, the troll is revealed."
Said the kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll who's been very stupidly trolling me to discuss something I didn't post.
Firstly, I didn't say that, and secondly, you backed the article and Signy's pushing of it. I quoted you. So do you stand by the article's conclusions or not?
You too Siggy. Are you both afraid that the predictions will turn out false and you will look foolish?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Heh - the mask slips, the troll is revealed."
Said the kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll who's been very stupidly trolling me to discuss something I didn't post.
Firstly, I didn't say that, and secondly, you backed the article and Signy's pushing of it. I quoted you. So do you stand by the article's conclusions or not?
You too Siggy. Are you both afraid that the predictions will turn out false and you will look foolish?
My god, you're a troll. I don't "back" anybody's predictions except ... the ones I back. Certainly not the ones you're attempting to pin on me. Jimminy crimminy! You're 100% idiot and 90% liar.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hillary Clinton To Face FBI Interview Within Weeks, CBS Reports
Quote:
As we reported yesterday, just when Hillary thought the email scandal was behind her, and she could shift her focus to the newly minted GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, an order by Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court decided to lay out ground rules for interviewing multiple State Department officials, and ordered at least six current and former State Department employees to answer questions, all in an effort to finish the depositions in the weeks before the party nominating conventions.
On the heels of interviewing Hillary Clinton's top personal aide Huma Abedin, as we detailed previously, it appears The FBI is finally ready to go after the Emailer-in-chief herself...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/hillary-clinton-face-fbi-inte
rview-within-weeks-cbs-reports
Zerohedgers are rubbing their hands and slavering at the prospect of The Hillary finally getting her comeuppance. The State Dept and Justice (ha!) Dept have dropped pursuing this private email server case which - IMHO- is far more revealing than even Republican politicians want to admit, leaving the FBI to carry on alone. And Since the State Department, the CIA, the Justice Department and the NSA are closely aligned that leaves the FBI the odd man out to fight the deep state.
So is this a last-ditch effort to derail The Hillary from her coronation? Or is this the FBI's cave-in, their attempt to "get this out of the way" BEFORE the coronation?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kiki:
you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.
So here I am, posting about kpoONEOFTHETHTREESTOOGEStroll's post. Note - I didn't post the article.
kpoONEOFTHETHTREESTOOGEStroll:
So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about? If not, then kindly pipe down.
And here's krapper challenging me to sign on to an article I DIDN'T POST.
So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about? If not, then kindly pipe down.
Bump for kiki and Signy.
And again.
^Kiki backing Signy's pushing of the article, and backing the supposed factuality of the article.
And here's krapper straw-manning my post in order to troll me about an article I DIDN'T POST.
kiki:
Said the kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll who's been very stupidly trolling me to discuss something I didn't post.
kpoONEOFTHETHREESTOOGEStroll:
Firstly, I didn't say that, krapper, remember "So Sig, kiki, are you guys" and "Bump for kiki and Signy"? and "article you keep going on about?" and "Are you both afraid that the predictions will turn out false and you will look foolish? You mean you HAVEN'T been trolling me about an article I didn't post? Then why did you direct your trolling to me by name, and include me in your trolls to Signy?
and secondly, you backed the article krapper, I said there were FACTS in the article, I didn't BACK THE ARTICLE
and Signy's pushing of it. Where, krapper? Where did I 'BACK' Signy's 'pushing' of it?
I quoted you. krapper, you quoted me commenting ABOUT YOUR POST.
So do you stand by the article's conclusions or not?
Not my post, not my discussion. Not my concern.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump is now starting to attack Hillary for being an enabling partner of a sexual predator. No typical mudslinging this election, it's buckets of bloody entrails.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump is now starting to attack Hillary for being an enabling partner of a sexual predator.
This didn't get a whole lot of traction back then among democrats and I expect it'll get even less now. First if all, if you want people en masse to accept it, you'll have to tone down the overblown language. Bill was never even accused of sex with anyone underage, let alone convicted. And while adult women have accused Bill of many things, he hasn't been convicted, Is he in the national database of sexual offenders? No. So the message that you're repeating that he's a predator is not credible, and it undercuts not only the point you might be trying to make, but also your own personal believability. Also, if that's what Trump is saying, it'll undermine him too, among people not already inclined to vote for him.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:You made your position clear at
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Do I need to editorialize about how much money, material, and manpower Curtis LeMay wasted?
No, because that's not how you conduct a debate. That was the problem with the last time. I'll remind you, from the old thread:
KPO: "I have opined quite a lot in this thread, giving my thoughts on this matter and others. You have not paid attention even when I've responded directly to your questions, so I don't see the point in doing so again."
I might as well turn on my television and try to argue with it.
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=59952&mid=1001370#
1001370
So what was my position?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
My god, you're a troll. I don't "back" anybody's predictions except ... the ones I back. Certainly not the ones you're attempting to pin on me.
I'm not trying to pin any predictions on you. I'm asking you if you agree with the predictions made by an article YOU posted (and pushed repeatedly, with help from kiki). It's a simple enough question, and in response you and kiki have offered 1) evasion, 2) name-calling and 3) no direct answer.
You're in a tough position because if you side with the predictions you appear foolish (and ever more foolish over time), but if you distance yourself from the predictions you highlight even more the fact that they are lunatic ravings.
And here is the point of the exercise. Any commentator who makes such deranged predictions is either highly unbalanced or hyper-biased or both. And why should any of us pay any attention to arguments made by such a person? Or to another person on the internet typing in all-caps telling us we should heed them?
Answer: We shouldn't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your position? After I remove all the inert ingredients? And boil down your position to its radioactive element? Your position is the same as a retweet by Jayne:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:You made your position clear at
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Do I need to editorialize about how much money, material, and manpower Curtis LeMay wasted?
No, because that's not how you conduct a debate. That was the problem with the last time. I'll remind you, from the old thread:
KPO: "I have opined quite a lot in this thread, giving my thoughts on this matter and others. You have not paid attention even when I've responded directly to your questions, so I don't see the point in doing so again."
I might as well turn on my television and try to argue with it.
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=59952&mid=1001370#
1001370
So what was my position?
Quote:
Adam Baldwin Retweeted
Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter 19h19 hours ago
One US Soldier's life > Hiroshima.
I bet Trump agrees.
I bet Hillary doesn't.
Vote accordingly.
https://twitter.com/KurtSchlichter/status/730082105439346689
I will restate that math in plain English and correct for the fact that Adam Baldwin forgot to add the two for a second bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
"One US Soldier's life is worth more than 100,000 dead babies roasted to death by A-Bombs dropped on Japan."
I don't think Jayne got the correct formula because he substituted the greater than symbol " > " for the less than symbol " < ".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME