The Clinton Body Count
 

Continues to go up and up and up.

Maybe Don was right.:eek:

http://politicalchat.org/showpost.ph...3&postcount=19

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...ng-dnc-papers/

I'd say you've finally jumped the shark with this one but you did that a long time ago. This time I think the shark jumped you and then had its way with you.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Consider the source, Joad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_...Freedom_Center

I think you should leave Alabama. You're getting more stupid by the day.

As if Central Florida weren't bad enough.

Source checking and trolling seldom go hand in hand. I think we should consider the source of the thread before we spend too many keystrokes responding.

Indeed. From the frying pan into the fire.;)

I see.

It's the Trump people that have a monopoly on immature rhetoric. :rolleyes:

Offering a source that shows you trust biased sources is immature rhetoric?

Your Clinton Derangement Syndrome is laughable, TJ.

You mistake reasoned analysis for immature rhetoric. Your record here and your past and current admissions of motive indicate trolling. And although at this point, I am acting contrary to my own advice, I am posting one last time to reiterate the appropriate response to your continued trolling -- which should be and will be no response at all.

You invite this sort of response with every post you make. You have no one to blame but yourself.

The source doesn't matter in this case. The kid is still dead.

Troll #2 raises his ugly head.

Seriously? Are you buying into this conspiracy theory too, Mike? :confused:

There is more innuendo in that article than in a proctologist's office.

As is every person who ever died.:confused:

And your Trump Derangement Syndrome? Don't look now, but there's an epidemic of that going around.

Name one bad thing anyone has said about Trump that is contrary to fact, and can only be explained by 'derangement.'

Bet you can't name even one.

One man's fact is another man's hyperbole.

Sure Joad, suuuure. :rolleyes:

The press has had enough of Trump's lies and prevarications and like the sharks they are, they smell blood in the water, bro. The free ride is over for Cheeto Hitler and he's gonna end up squished like the fascist stinkbug he is. :D

Trump doesn't do facts.

But, hyperbole? Trump is the most hyperbolic guy you have EVER seen, bar none. No one does hyperbole like the Donald. His hyperbole is first class, without peer, folks. Trust me on that.

Plainly spoken, he's a bullshit artist.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Indeed, par excellence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...856_story.html

So name a 'hyperbole.' Name one. Can you name one?

One that is evidence of 'derangement' if one entertains it for a moment?

It's still literally incredible that this babbling yam of a manchild bully is actually a presidential candidate.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

You and D-Ray were disputing the facts based on the source. I have no idea whether or not there's a "conspiracy" (though folks associated with the Clintons do seem to have a disproportionate rate of unfortunate things happening to them), but there's no disputing the reports that the kid is dead.

Cheeto-Hitler?

Facist Stinkbug?

Trumperfuher?

Shit, it would take me all night to list all the immature Junior High School insults the Clinton people direct at Trump.

And yes, I am guilty of doing the same thing about Hillary.

So you see, you all are no better than I am, so shove your sanctimonious holier than thou attitude.

The difference, of course, is one doesn't have to be deranged to hold that Trump is an dangerous wanabee Hitler. The militant nationalism, the nativism, the bigotry, the brutality, the reliance on big lies--it's all right there. The assessment is based on facts, not on derangement.

It's actually easier to argue one has to be deranged to think otherwise.

Gimmee a break Don.

It's two sides of the same coin and you know it.

No break for you.

You're in denial and you know it. The calls for national greatness, the blaming of outsiders, the scapegoating of Mexicans and Islamics, the advocacy of torture and terror, the petty cruelty, the pervasive lies--none of this is hidden. You just ignore it.

The fact that a young man died is unquestionable. The suggestion that his death should be added to a "Clinton body count" is far from factual. You are capable of distinguishing between fact and innuendo, but you choose not to.

It is just a way to try and reinforce the narrative they want to believe in, when all they have is innuendo and conspiracies.


Barney

Really, that's your take-away from my post 28? I guess you could have read it more closely, but you chose not to. :rolleyes:

Ah, and you want full faith and credit for this disclaimer, after giving the thread the title "The Clinton Body Count?


Now we see the innuendo that's the basis of your attack. Come see the innuendo that's the basis of the attack!

Seems to me that d-ray had your number but good.

This forum has become nothing but a pro-Clinton circle jerk.

It really is unseemly from an objective POV.

I'll hang around and try to provide at least some modicum of balance.

You can thank me later if you ever come to your senses.

You can blame the sick joke Republican nominee for that.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I didn't "give the thread the title". I didn't start the thread.

I can see how you'd draw that conclusion, since you can't even keep your facts straight about something as simple as who started this thread.

Hmmm...seems i can't tell the difference between Joad and whell any more.