It's Saturday. Chill the fuck out.

 

I wouldn't say we were 'tag teaming' him . . well . . maybe we were , just a lil'.

I never place the lil' fucker on ignore, I'll just pick and choose which lines of leftist rhetoric propaganda I respond too.

DL is just a loud mouthed leftist, put all the leftists in a bag, shake it up, open it, you'll still have a big bag of shit.

 

SO. . . what your saying here, is, DL wont do the same on Tuesday?

 

How did I lose that argument? The Affordable Care Act was passed legally.

Since you broached the the subject of "a pathetic fraud," I would expect someone with a degree in poetry would have better written and verbal skills than you have demonstrated on XNXX. Your story "Beauty" was a jungle of words unworthy of exploring. Never mind about your claim to be in the 1% with your computer skills.

 

You most generally lose most arguments.

This is something that I said 4 years ago, not many picked up on it, because a very high percentage of U.S. citizens dont understand the U.S. Constitution and it's parameters, including most of Congress, and all of the Executive Branch.

According to the new lawsuit, Obamacare is being challenged due to legislative maneuvering used by Dingy Harry when the law was passed some five years ago. Constitutionally, all bills that raise revenue in the United States must be originated in the House of Representatives. Dingy Harry and the Senate, naturally, make up the other branch of the federal government’s Congress, and Reid and the Senate, therefore, stepped on the House toes by doing first what the House legally should have done as dictated by the United States Constitution.

 

It's hard for me to defend anything about Bill Clinton, Bill would probably fuck a Labrador retriever if he could, but I dont think he would fuck an under aged Labrador retriever.

 

Wow, you believe every salacious rumor about Clinton's cock, don't you... And again, I'm not voting for Hillary as I don't consider her to be a democrat. She's an opportunist.

 

My arguments are fact based and logical. Just because you do not like then does not mean that they are invalid.

When you say, "a very high percentage of U.S. citizens dont understand the U.S. Constitution," all you mean is that they disagree with you too.

Your Constitutional arguments amount to the assertion that the opinions of Americans who voted during the end of the eighteenth century are more valuable than the opinions of Americans who have voted during the beginning of the twenty first century.

 

Based strictly on your opinion.

Based strictly on your opinion.

Based strictly on your opinion.

Based strictly on your opinion.

 

Didn't say I believe the Epstein stuff or that there's proof of any of it. All I did was respond to your accusation that the Clintons are treated unfairly.

I doubt we'll ever prove a tenth of what is being said about Clinton's time at Epstein's harem. The guy is a billionaire with his own island, and he gets his girls from all over the world.

But the media uses two standards when dealing with rumors. If the rumor is about a Democrat, they demand three sources of ironclad proof before the story will move off the Enquirer and hit a real newspaper.

Look at John Edwards. The whole world knew he was sleeping around on his cancer-afflicted wife, and only the Enquirer would cover it. That scummy bastard came within a hair's breadth of the presidency, and we didn't see "proof" until long afterward. In Massachusetts something similar happened with Anthony Weiner. The examples are endless.

But unsubstantiated rumors about Sarah Palin arose, and the Associated Press had people literally combing through her trash. Not a single accusation ever stuck, but it didn't matter. It dominated the news. And what about Mitt Romney? Harry Reid no doubt swung the general election with his "bombshell." "Someone told him" that Romney hadn't paid his taxes. Who had told him? None of our business. But it was front page news for months, and every Democrat on earth knew without a doubt that Romney hadn't paid his taxes.

Back to Bill Clinton. We know he has spent weeks on end at Epstein's harem. We know Epstein's Madame attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding. We know Bill Clinton will put his hands and dick on everything but the third rail.

That's not enough for the New York Times. But that's enough for me. Where there's smoke there's fire.

 

So, to prove it, you treat them unfairly by repeating a rumor that even you're not sure is true... Huh?

You really do think that Sarah Palin is intelligent and deserved to be a VP candidate, don't you? I'm sure you also thought Katie Curic was being mean when she aired that interview, too.

Just a clue for you, even the GOP now thinks she's dumb as a bag of wet cement.

And the moment any official investigations happen over any Republican act, then get back to us. You brought up Cheney, let's start there.

 

Didn't try to prove anything. I just said the mainstream isn't covering it. But if Ben Carson or Donald Trump stopped on Epstein's island to take a leak, it would be front page news for months. And you know it.

Didn't say she's intelligent. I said the Associated Press flew staff up to Alaska and had them climb into her dumpster in search of dirt to smear her and came up empty. That's all I said. But you think Hillary Clinton is being treated unfairly.

Like what? His hurricane machine? The thermite he personally planted in the Twin Towers? What do you propose we try him for?

 

Wow, you really are ignorant... Ever heard of his thoughts on how torture was effective and his admissions to authorizing its use?

 

Get this, folks: ace's n 8's claims to be a more competent Constitutional scholar than "most of Congress, and all of the Executive Branch."

Tell me, Professor Ace, when was the last time you read the United States Constitution in its entirety?

 

So?

 

Man, you are a dumbass. "An excuse to obey the law", it's okay that people receive money in tax refunds over and above what they have paid in, because of the law. But, that does not change the fact that they are receiving money from the government with no corresponding input, that is welfare. Explain why it is not.


One article talks about 60% receiving more in transfer dollars than they pay, you think that is "hundreds of thousands"? The other talks about 50% paying no income tax at all.

 

Reading the Constitution is one thing, it is rather elementary.

Understanding the era in which is was written in order to understand the terms and phrases that were used in that era, it seems a bit too complex for those that believe it's just a living document that has loose definitions and open to opposing interpretations, written by rich white slave owners. . . . does any of that sound familiar?

 

Trump's stock has just gone up, because Biden has officially declined.

Hillary Clinton can't beat Trump, and Bernie Sanders can't beat Hillary.

 

That's the way I see it also.

 

Sanders v Trump

RCP Average 47.2 42.0 Sanders +5.2
Sanders - Trump

10/14 - 10/17 CNN/ORC 53 44 Sanders +9
10/1 - 10/4 PPP 44 44 Tie
9/20 - 9/24 NBC News/Wall St. 52 36 Sanders +16
9/17 - 9/21 Quinnipiac 47 42 Sanders +5
9/2 - 9/3 SurveyUSA 40 44 Trump +4
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Clinton v Trump

RCP Average 45.7 43.2 Clinton +2.5
Clinton - Trump

10/14 - 10/17 CNN/ORC 50 45 Clinton +5
10/10 - 10/12 FOX News 40 45 Trump +5
10/1 - 10/4 PPP (D) 44 44 Tie
9/20 - 9/24 NBC News/Wall St. 49 39 Clinton +10
9/17 - 9/21 Quinnipiac 45 43 Clinton + 2
9/7 - 9/10 ABC News/Wash Post 46 43 Clinton +3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html