RugbyRebels

Even though she wanted to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, along with yet another regime change, and draw Russia into World War III while she was at it?

Ooookay

Clinton would have been able to resist going on Twitter to bait other nations, but then she was overwhelmingly a stronger and more ethical candidate. Against which the State Department could use a bit of a kicking, though it'd be better not to have a cretin performing that service

Digby wrote:Clinton would have been able to resist going on Twitter to bait other nations, but then she was overwhelmingly a stronger and more ethical candidate. Against which the State Department could use a bit of a kicking, though it'd be better not to have a cretin performing that service

Clinton of the email scandals fame, you mean? The "stronger and more ethical candidate" who destroyed Libya and laughed about it, you mean? The one who supported the invasion of Iraq? The one who waivered a ban on child soldiers so America could continue fueling civil war in Sudan. The selfsame Clinton who supported a coup in the Honduras and wanted to get rid of Syria's internationally recognized leader and provoke Russia into war?

Oooookay

WW3 talk

I still don't even understand, Is his hair combed forwards or backwards? What point on his head is it coming from?

Mikey Brown wrote:I still don't even understand, Is his hair combed forwards or backwards? What point on his head is it coming from?

When it comes to Trump it's mostly bollocks.

rowan wrote:

Joining Hitler, Stalin and Nixon.

This should give the twat a much needed ego boost.

WaspInWales wrote:This should give the twat a much needed ego boost.

Well if you can't feel good about appointing a climate change denier to head up the EPA...

cashead wrote:Even if he'd lost the election, he probably would've been TIME's Person of the Year. He was the one perpetually all over the news, so it's a logical choice.

No, it would have been Hillary for sure, only she would've been Time's WOMAN of the year, which would've been great - if only she hadn't been a war criminal complicit in the deaths of many thousands of women (and children and men, of course) in the Middle East & elsewhere.

I know. & Clinton would most certainly have got it had she been elected first woman president of America. However, while this would have undoubtedly been heralded by her flock as recognition of her virtuous qualities, it is not a title for do-gooders, of course, but rather an acknolwedgement of how much impact on the world an individual has made.

I'm not sure I've ever been so surprised by an election result in my life. I can only think of examples in sports which have caught me off guard to the same extent - Tyson's loss to Buster Douglas, for example, Brazil's loss to France in the 98 WC final, the All Blacks losses at the 99 & 03 RWCs. Never saw any of those coming either...

Stop nitpicking, Cashead. You're beginning to sound like a depraved lunatic.

Len wrote:WW3 talk

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:Stop nitpicking, Cashead. You're beginning to sound like a depraved lunatic.

You planning on answering the question?

No

rowan wrote:

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:Stop nitpicking, Cashead. You're beginning to sound like a depraved lunatic.

You planning on answering the question?

No

Seems to me to be a perfectly valid question. Why is Clinton's sex such an issue to you? You have posted a couple of images around the site of Melania Trump. These have either been nude or near nude. Is that the issue? Do you prefer that women in politics are a) simply married to the politicians and b) look good naked?

And before you post the same response as always. There is a difference between "shooting the messenger" and calling you up on the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in the bilge you tend to post on here.

You've completely ignored the fact that I mentioned a woman of the year would be a positive thing. That's because you have a shoot-the-messenger approach. You twist things to suit your own ego and imagine things which are not even there. When somebody says a woman of the year would be a positive thing, you somehow construe that as being ill-conceived. That is because you have such a massive chip on your shoulder you are incapable of viewing anything at all from a balanced perspective. There are plenty of crude things being posted on the Random Funny Images thread but you take issue with this one. Well, if you're so sensitive this offends you, don't open the thread. If you do open the thread, don't single out my posts for criticism. Or it just comes across as cowardly hypocrisy.

rowan wrote:

cashead wrote:Even if he'd lost the election, he probably would've been TIME's Person of the Year. He was the one perpetually all over the news, so it's a logical choice.

No, it would have been Hillary for sure, only she would've been Time's WOMAN of the year, which would've been great - if only she hadn't been a war criminal complicit in the deaths of many thousands of women (and children and men, of course) in the Middle East & elsewhere.

I think you will find that most people think that it is far more positive that Time magazine doesn't feel the need to have a separate list for women. Once again you seem to have exposed yourself in public.

Oh, and BTW, the only issue I have with most of your Random Funny Images posts is the complete lack of Funny. And Random for that matter, most are oh so predictable.

Also, Chips/Shoulders? Pots/Kettles.

Anyway, the original point I was making, before everything went pear-shaped, was to disagree with Cashead's assertion Trump would have been Person of the Year even if he'd lost. We'll never know, of course, but I am pretty sure it would've been Clinton had she won and become the first female president.

Lizard wrote:

rowan wrote:

Joining Hitler, Stalin and Nixon.

Why stop there? If we're talking about genocidal maniacs, Winston Churchill and pactically every American president since its inception has received it, some of them twice - including such charming individuals as G W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon B Johnson, JFK and Dwight Eisenhower. But Clinton, whose own husband is also on the list, would have been more likely to follow in that vein that Trump.

Anyone would think you're slightly obsessed by Clinton...

Anyone would think you guys were slightly obsessed by Trump.

So we have a thread about Trump, you can compare him to Hilter but you can't mention Clinton, nor refer to the fact she is female, nor to the fact she had a more aggressive foreign policy lined up than the current Time Person of the Year.

Ooookay . . .

Why stop there? If we're talking about genocidal maniacs, Winston Churchill and pactically every American president since its inception has received it, some of them twice - including such charming individuals as G W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon B Johnson, JFK and Dwight Eisenhower. But Clinton, whose own husband is also on the list, would have been more likely to follow in that vein that Trump.

Hell, even John Dulles is in there. If they ever named me Time Person of the Year I'd turn it down flat...

rowan wrote:Anyone would think you guys were slightly obsessed by Trump.

So we have a thread about Trump, you can compare him to Hilter but you can't mention Clinton, nor refer to the fact she is female, nor to the fact she had a more aggressive foreign policy lined up than the current Time Person of the Year.

Ooookay . . .

As you can clearly see, no one has stopped you mentioning Clinton, her gender or her foreign policy as you do so in just about every thread. That was my point, you seem somewhat obsessed by the woman.

Trump is a lot more relevant than Clinton now, especially in regard to foreign policy, potential war, suffering of millions around the world. I think it makes much more sense to concentrate on what the orange fuckwit is going to do as POTUS, as opposed to what Clinton may do as POTUS.

Trump is a lot more relevant than Clinton now, especially in regard to foreign policy, potential war, suffering of millions around the world. I think it makes much more sense to concentrate on what the orange fuckwit is going to do as POTUS, as opposed to what Clinton may do as POTUS.

I say, old chap, rather obsessed with this fellow and the color of his hair, aren't you? Now, please write wot I want you to write about in future, there's a good native . . .

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:If they ever named me Time Person of the Year I'd turn it down flat...

Yeah, if.

I might get it just for dealing with you chumps