[The Beast1]

(04-12-2015 07:31 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 06:53 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 06:48 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

Rand Paul and Jim Webb are the only two candidates worth an acknowledgement.

They both have wives who pass the boner test too.

Rand Paul getting the Republican nomination and Jim Webb getting the Democratic nomination would be my dream for 2016. We might actually get to see a fairly honorable competition for president in that case and an election result that would be good for America no matter who won. So, that means it probably won't ever happen.

Also, if we're gonna use the test of the bangability of candidates' wives, we should've inaugurated President Dennis Kucinich a long time ago.

The hilarious side story to Elizabeth Kucinich:

Quote:

Newly in from England with no knowledge of who Dennis was other than being a Member of Congress, Elizabeth walked into Kucinich's office on 4 May 2005. They had an eight-minute meeting on monetary policy. The second time they met was in New Mexico at another policy event later that month. While in New Mexico they decided to get married and three months later they did so, on 21 August 2005.

Legit went from, "didn't know each other" to "honemooners" in fivish months.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(04-12-2015 09:27 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 08:29 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Hillary= Bill

Bush= Bush

No thanks. The Bush family is a complete super rich disconnect.

Agree. Don't want Hitlary OR a Bush. The only bush I wanna see is on vintage 1980's porn

You sir made my morning.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-13-2015 08:38 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 07:31 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 06:53 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 06:48 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

Rand Paul and Jim Webb are the only two candidates worth an acknowledgement.

They both have wives who pass the boner test too.

Rand Paul getting the Republican nomination and Jim Webb getting the Democratic nomination would be my dream for 2016. We might actually get to see a fairly honorable competition for president in that case and an election result that would be good for America no matter who won. So, that means it probably won't ever happen.

Also, if we're gonna use the test of the bangability of candidates' wives, we should've inaugurated President Dennis Kucinich a long time ago.

The hilarious side story to Elizabeth Kucinich:

Quote:

Newly in from England with no knowledge of who Dennis was other than being a Member of Congress, Elizabeth walked into Kucinich's office on 4 May 2005. They had an eight-minute meeting on monetary policy. The second time they met was in New Mexico at another policy event later that month. While in New Mexico they decided to get married and three months later they did so, on 21 August 2005.

Legit went from, "didn't know each other" to "honemooners" in fivish months.

Looks like they've stayed married, too. It'll be ten years this August.

We should consider Kucinich a manosphere icon since he always stuck by his principles -- no matter how unpopular or ridiculed they were -- and he still managed to score (as far as I can see) by far the hottest wife in American politics.

I raise my glass and tip my hat to this man. And, yes, I know this is way off-topic, but that's probably best when the subject is Hillary...

[MdWanderer]

(04-12-2015 10:57 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

The southern and midwestern states feel like there is NO WAY IN HELL they will vote for a woman. It will be Bush/Paul/Walker vs. Clinton. Bush will win. Everybody will gasp and pretend to faint. But most politicians knew it was coming.

Republican Congress. Republican President. Personally I don't care, I'm focused on getting the hell out of the country.

Well if Bush wins, you better be getting the hell out (I might even be following you). I don't see how he will be any better than Clinton. Heck, he might even be worse. People quickly forget the disaster that was his brother's presidency for eight years with two wars plunging us into the deficit that we are in now and whose father was voted out back in 1992. The two previous Bush administrations were failures I don't see how he will be any different. If he wins, war with Iran will all but be a mere formality; showing that the GOP are still shills for Israel and that they haven't learned a damn thing.

As for Clinton, I won't be surprised to see Elizabeth Warren possibly throw her hat in the ring and challenge her. She can satisfy the Democrats wants for a female candidate as well as a less polarizing figure than Clinton.

[The Beast1]

(04-13-2015 09:10 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:38 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 07:31 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 06:53 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 06:48 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

Rand Paul and Jim Webb are the only two candidates worth an acknowledgement.

They both have wives who pass the boner test too.

Rand Paul getting the Republican nomination and Jim Webb getting the Democratic nomination would be my dream for 2016. We might actually get to see a fairly honorable competition for president in that case and an election result that would be good for America no matter who won. So, that means it probably won't ever happen.

Also, if we're gonna use the test of the bangability of candidates' wives, we should've inaugurated President Dennis Kucinich a long time ago.

snipped image

The hilarious side story to Elizabeth Kucinich:

Quote:

Newly in from England with no knowledge of who Dennis was other than being a Member of Congress, Elizabeth walked into Kucinich's office on 4 May 2005. They had an eight-minute meeting on monetary policy. The second time they met was in New Mexico at another policy event later that month. While in New Mexico they decided to get married and three months later they did so, on 21 August 2005.

Legit went from, "didn't know each other" to "honemooners" in fivish months.

Looks like they've stayed married, too. It'll be ten years this August.

We should consider Kucinich a manosphere icon since he always stuck by his principles -- no matter how unpopular or ridiculed they were -- and he still managed to score (as far as I can see) by far the hottest wife in American politics.

I raise my glass and tip my hat to this man. And, yes, I know this is way off-topic, but that's probably best when the subject is Hillary...

Sticking to your "guns" as a liberal is easy when your beliefs are the du jour intellectual cause. I wouldn't give him too much credit

[Phoenix]

(04-12-2015 04:22 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

Fucking idiot, there have already been scores of female leaders in the world.

Yeah, and Margaret Thatcher was one of the best leaders outright. I've no problem voting for a woman if she's not a leftist and she sounds competent.

(04-12-2015 04:27 PM)Soma Wrote:  

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill

I always find Churchill's democracy quips bemusing, given the role he played in the Parliament Act 1911.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-13-2015 09:41 AM)MdWanderer Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 10:57 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

The southern and midwestern states feel like there is NO WAY IN HELL they will vote for a woman. It will be Bush/Paul/Walker vs. Clinton. Bush will win. Everybody will gasp and pretend to faint. But most politicians knew it was coming.

Republican Congress. Republican President. Personally I don't care, I'm focused on getting the hell out of the country.

Well if Bush wins, you better be getting the hell out (I might even be following you). I don't see how he will be any better than Clinton. Heck, he might even be worse. People quickly forget the disaster that was his brother's presidency for eight years with two wars plunging us into the deficit that we are in now and whose father was voted out back in 1992. The two previous Bush administrations were failures I don't see how he will be any different. If he wins, war with Iran will all but be a mere formality; showing that the GOP are still shills for Israel and that they haven't learned a damn thing.

As for Clinton, I won't be surprised to see Elizabeth Warren possibly throw her hat in the ring and challenge her. She can satisfy the Democrats wants for a female candidate as well as a less polarizing figure than Clinton.

"Well if Bush wins, you better be getting the hell out (I might even be following you). I don't see how he will be any better than Clinton."

Specifically in terms of men, I can see how Clinton would be a lot worse. First, there's the "paycheck fairness act," which will harm men, their families, and decimate high-risk-but-well-paid male jobs if it's passed. Expect women's groups to lobby her on this one.

Second, while Bush might be a warmonger, she is too and she'll have no compunction sending mostly male troops overseas, yet then go around talking about how women are oppressed. Getting sent off to die is a pretty big form of oppression, I'd say.

Then there's the ever-expanding rape laws, which you have to expect her to get behind. Come to think of it, virtually all the pet subjects on this forum regarding gender relations are things she'll be on the other side of.

Finally, back in 1998, she was quoted as saying the following. I think the below quote, more than anything, sums up how women see men as disposable, and shows exactly why men should fear them as leaders. The obliviousness to the lives, worth, and sacrifices of men in the quote is astounding:

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children."

[It_is_my_time]

(04-13-2015 09:41 AM)MdWanderer Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 10:57 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

The southern and midwestern states feel like there is NO WAY IN HELL they will vote for a woman. It will be Bush/Paul/Walker vs. Clinton. Bush will win. Everybody will gasp and pretend to faint. But most politicians knew it was coming.

Republican Congress. Republican President. Personally I don't care, I'm focused on getting the hell out of the country.

Well if Bush wins, you better be getting the hell out (I might even be following you). I don't see how he will be any better than Clinton. Heck, he might even be worse. People quickly forget the disaster that was his brother's presidency for eight years with two wars plunging us into the deficit that we are in now and whose father was voted out back in 1992. The two previous Bush administrations were failures I don't see how he will be any different. If he wins, war with Iran will all but be a mere formality; showing that the GOP are still shills for Israel and that they haven't learned a damn thing.

As for Clinton, I won't be surprised to see Elizabeth Warren possibly throw her hat in the ring and challenge her. She can satisfy the Democrats wants for a female candidate as well as a less polarizing figure than Clinton.

The word deficit means spending over your annual income. You mean "debt". Bush's debt was atrocious, that is true. Obama has managed to more than double Bush's debt in his first four years and thinks we don't spend enough. Hillary's economic plans will be much in line with Obama's and at the same time she was a war hawk during Iraq.

[Menace]

I suspect that candidate Hillary and putative president Hillary are two very different people (more so than usual). I don't think she'd be quite as liberal/progressive as people think. That being said, I won't vote for her no matter what. Too bad Romney's not running, I kind of think he'd be pretty decent.

[MdWanderer]

(04-13-2015 10:12 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The word deficit means spending over your annual income. You mean "debt". Bush's debt was atrocious, that is true. Obama has managed to more than double Bush's debt in his first four years and thinks we don't spend enough. Hillary's economic plans will be much in line with Obama's and at the same time she was a war hawk during Iraq.

I've confused the two, you're right, but I was referring too to the deficit spending during the Bush Administration on the wars as well as the tax cuts that offset the spending which led to our debt.

(04-13-2015 10:11 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Specifically in terms of men, I can see how Clinton would be a lot worse. First, there's the "paycheck fairness act," which will harm men, their families, and decimate high-risk-but-well-paid male jobs if it's passed. Expect women's groups to lobby her on this one.

Second, while Bush might be a warmonger, she is too and she'll have no compunction sending mostly male troops overseas, yet then go around talking about how women are oppressed. Getting sent off to die is a pretty big form of oppression, I'd say.

Then there's the ever-expanding rape laws, which you have to expect her to get behind. Come to think of it, virtually all the pet subjects on this forum regarding gender relations are things she'll be on the other side of.

Finally, back in 1998, she was quoted as saying the following. I think the below quote, more than anything, sums up how women see men as disposable, and shows exactly why men should fear them as leaders. The obliviousness to the lives, worth, and sacrifices of men in the quote is astounding:

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children."

I see what you are saying. I'm not sure how her Presidency will turn out but i'm just going of off the track record of the other Bush Presidencies. I still predict that a dark horse candidate will come out of nowhere and win the Democratic nomination.

[It_is_my_time]

(04-13-2015 10:34 AM)MdWanderer Wrote:  

[quote='It_is_my_time' pid='999140' dateline='1428937966']


I've confused the two, you're right, but I was referring too to the deficit spending during the Bush Administration on the wars as well as the tax cuts that offset the spending which led to our debt.

Tax cuts don't necessarily cut or increase the govt. income.

20% of $1,000,000 is more than 50% of $300,000.

I agree Bush made a HUGE mistake leading us into Iraq. But Hillary was right there voting to go to Iraq as well.

As for his tax cuts, it meant less to our feminist wasteful govt. and more in the pockets of the average person and the business owners to hire and expand.

[MdWanderer]

(04-13-2015 10:43 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

I agree Bush made a HUGE mistake leading us into Iraq. But Hillary was right there voting to go to Iraq as well.

I remembered when that happened. But I think this time around if Hillary wants to take us to war with Iran she has more to lose. I don't think she'll get the protection from the media for every little thing she does like Obama; many Americans either hate her or love her and the opposition would be ten times stronger and vocal in her case.

[kaotic]

I give up there is hardly a single candidate worthy of POTUS.

Yet am I the only who thinks the one person one vote is a joke and that "voting" is just an illusion of choice ?

[IvanDrago]

(04-13-2015 11:47 AM)kaotic Wrote:  

Yet am I the only who thinks the one person one vote is a joke and that "voting" is just an illusion of choice ?

I'm with you. Rooting for politicians is cult behavior, especially on the national level. People are given a "choice" to vote between a couple of pre-selected drinking buddies, that's all. You're not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise. Just let them repeat words and phrases they heard pumped down from the AP and let them root for their team in the superbowl. There's not much you can do about it except ignore the spam.

I only pay attention to local elections and vote down any time someone wants to build something with my money.

[Jneg]

(04-13-2015 10:14 AM)Menace Wrote:  

I suspect that candidate Hillary and putative president Hillary are two very different people (more so than usual). I don't think she'd be quite as liberal/progressive as people think. That being said, I won't vote for her no matter what. Too bad Romney's not running, I kind of think he'd be pretty decent.

Romney was America's last chance.
Hillary! will win this election. Obama's new mexican illegal voter base will see to that

[IvanDrago]

(04-13-2015 12:52 PM)Jneg Wrote:  

Romney was America's last chance.

Stop it, you're killing me over here.

[Dusty]

Jeb Bush's wife.

Apparently from what I heard she's pretty ignorant too. She speaks broken English and is into low status shit like getting busted trying to sneak shit through customs.

[WalterBlack]

(04-12-2015 04:14 PM)8ball Wrote:  

Its pretty clear the demographics targeted by this ad. We'll see if her people have crunched the numbers correctly or are making a big mistake.

Look who’s in the video

• Single mother
• Short haired old hag
• 2 Hispanic brothers
• Mother looking forward to going back to work after having her kids
• Black couple
• Asian woman (slim)
• 2 faggots looking forward to getting married
• Fat old short haired married hag looking forward to retirement
• White male, Indian female(?) couple
• Bald guy – he seem to be the only masculine guy in the whole video
• “Families are strong, America is strong” - single mother, one heterosexual white couple, dykes.
  

I think this advert would be banned in Russia. Apparently there are no families in America where a woman can be a housewife.

Obama didn’t have the balls to mention gay marriage when he first ran, he only brought it up for his second run because he knew he was going to win. There’s a lot of bait and switch bullshit in politics.

Look at what Obama just did: White House Makes 1st Gender-Neutral Bathroom Available

Quote:

The White House's first gender-neutral bathroom is now open.

The "all-gender bathroom" was first made available this past Wednesday, the same day Obama's executive order expanding protections for federal employees against discrimination became federal law, White House spokesman Jeff Tiller told ABC News.

Though the gender-neutral bathroom is located in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, anyone can use whatever bathroom they feel best fits their gender identity, Tiller said. The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is located near the West Wing of the White House and used by White House staff.

“The White House allows staff and guests to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity, which is in keeping with the administration’s existing legal guidance on this issue and consistent with what is required by the executive order that took effect [Wednesday] for federal contractors," Tiller told ABC News in a prepared statement.

What would Eisenhower think about this bullshit?!

[spokepoker]

(04-13-2015 01:21 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

Look at what Obama just did: White House Makes 1st Gender-Neutral Bathroom Available

Quote:

The White House's first gender-neutral bathroom is now open.

The "all-gender bathroom" was first made available this past Wednesday, the same day Obama's executive order expanding protections for federal employees against discrimination became federal law, White House spokesman Jeff Tiller told ABC News.

Though the gender-neutral bathroom is located in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, anyone can use whatever bathroom they feel best fits their gender identity, Tiller said. The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is located near the West Wing of the White House and used by White House staff.

“The White House allows staff and guests to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity, which is in keeping with the administration’s existing legal guidance on this issue and consistent with what is required by the executive order that took effect [Wednesday] for federal contractors," Tiller told ABC News in a prepared statement.

What would Eisenhower think about this bullshit?!

Gender neutral? Do they mean co-ed? Those are the bathrooms people use for quickies during work. White house must have some tightly wound staffers.

Sounds like bathrooms need to be genitally segregated. Cocks here, Cunts there.

[Cr33pin]

Remember.... Hilary Clinton outsourced her first job in office to Monica Lewinksy.

[Geomann180]

G

[Grange]

(04-13-2015 09:10 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:38 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 07:31 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 06:53 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 06:48 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

Rand Paul and Jim Webb are the only two candidates worth an acknowledgement.

They both have wives who pass the boner test too.

Rand Paul getting the Republican nomination and Jim Webb getting the Democratic nomination would be my dream for 2016. We might actually get to see a fairly honorable competition for president in that case and an election result that would be good for America no matter who won. So, that means it probably won't ever happen.

Also, if we're gonna use the test of the bangability of candidates' wives, we should've inaugurated President Dennis Kucinich a long time ago.

The hilarious side story to Elizabeth Kucinich:

Quote:

Newly in from England with no knowledge of who Dennis was other than being a Member of Congress, Elizabeth walked into Kucinich's office on 4 May 2005. They had an eight-minute meeting on monetary policy. The second time they met was in New Mexico at another policy event later that month. While in New Mexico they decided to get married and three months later they did so, on 21 August 2005.

Legit went from, "didn't know each other" to "honemooners" in fivish months.

Looks like they've stayed married, too. It'll be ten years this August.

We should consider Kucinich a manosphere icon since he always stuck by his principles -- no matter how unpopular or ridiculed they were -- and he still managed to score (as far as I can see) by far the hottest wife in American politics.

I raise my glass and tip my hat to this man. And, yes, I know this is way off-topic, but that's probably best when the subject is Hillary...

Notice how the mating dynamic we recognize plays out here. He is short and goofy looking but powerful and high status in far left political circles. Verdict: high SMV. She is an activist but is also conventionally attractive. Verdict: high SMV. Both of them could take their pick of the low SMV freaks around them but they ended up with each other.

[Akula]

(04-13-2015 12:57 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 12:52 PM)Jneg Wrote:  

Romney was America's last chance.

Stop it, you're killing me over here.

heh yeah I mean Hillary would suck and all but if Romney was America's last chance then we're all more screwed than I ever thought.

[Sonsowey]

You all seen that "Hillary is inevitable" article circulating amongst liberals?

Basically the article says "fall in line, it's Hillary, there is no liberal alternative, opposing her is equivalent to supporting Republicans"

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/reali...need-face/

"Liberals might not like hearing this, but it’s going to be Hillary Clinton or a Republican in 2016. It really breaks down to these two options: Either get on board with Hillary Clinton, even if she’s not everything you’ve dreamed of. - or – Whine and cry because Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to run, become apathetic, then let Republicans win the White House in 2016; likely replace four Supreme Court Justices over the following 8 years; start a war with Iran; ruin the planet; destroy our economy again; and undo all the good that’s been done these last 6 years. Yes, it’s really that simple."

Hilarious after Obama knocked her out last time when people thought she was "inevitable".



Maybe this would work to help Liberals feel a little less comfortable about her dynastic inevitablity

[Libertas]

Now we've got the Hollywood degenerates coming out and supporting Hillary for basically no reason whatsoever. What do they do? Nothing. What do they know? Nothing. That won't stop them from coming out and supporting someone and attempting to be cool though, and likewise all their degenerate followers.