which is all we need to know.

Next.

"Way to address the issues." I like your post better!

in the photo that they're panting over.

It just points up the sheer inanity of Camp Weathervane, its willingness to stoop as low as possible.

I was distracted

The level of this latest nastiness is about three-years old. or 4Chan.

I thought for certain the whole thing was a joke. I should have known better.

Last edited Tue May 3, 2016, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Looks like my ignore list will be permanent.

And, as many in that thread pointed out - a team that includes Bill Clinton should really not be making this shit up - Bill provides all-too-true fodder of that sort. When Claire McCaskill says she wouldn't leave her daughter alone in a room with Bill, Hillary's supporters should realized that they are living in a glass house, throwing really stupidly invented out of desperation stones. That poster could likely get a job at TMZ, or worse.

what a slew of complete imbeciles .... they get more and more infantile the worse it looks for her...pretty pathetic

He touches her skin, he is subject to ridicule

He touches the fabric covering her hip, he is subject to ridicule.

They know he's a good, decent man and is being perfectly correct here. All they can do is make up pathetic garbage to slime him with.

There's nothing too low.

because no rational person could get upset by that photo. She's very pretty, and looks gorgeous in that dress, but where to put the hand in a photo op?

No one is REALLY upset about this, are they?

try to paint a good man as some sort of pervert.

I find that offensive.

Every act of desperation means we are coming closer to victory.

post that picture with a dirty snigger. The mindset there is really appalling.

your post SHOULD be hidden. In a normal world.

History and evidence would suggest otherwise.

Personally, I think people's sex lives, even those of public figures, should be left to themselves. That is why this repeated posting of an innocent photo of Sanders and a supporter is ridiculous.

But not as ridiculous (or ironic) as someone attempting to defend Bill Clinton's documented activities while at the same time trying to slander Sanders.

Not suggesting you are doing either btw, but your post kind of brought it all together as a convenient way to comment.

No one implies that the issues started when he was old.

pushing this nonsense? Rather than just laughing off that stupidity?

It shows the level of victimhood and how entrenched it is.

Every last one of those outrages.

It's pathetic, to say the least.

Or, to put it another way, some people have dirty minds.

that they take a light-hearted ribbing of their candidate as some sort of personal attack.

I'd look in the mirror and start asking some questions.

Form an OP upset by Bernie's supposed "grab-grab ass".

So, what's Bernie doing playing grab-ass with a supermodel at that event? Seems a little creepy to me, really.

lol

And they didn't lose their shit over a visit to the Vatican. It's very transparent what is going on denial isn't going to help.

The funniest part was how y'all overreacted and the multiple copycat retaliatory posts. That just made it all the more enjoyable ... as does THIS thread!

BSers are so easy.

I think it was a stupid f'ing post written by someone who has a history of this shit.

Followed, of course, by all the ignorant, nasty remarks.

LOL. So funny...

Like when Hillary Clinton's husband had sex with an intern?

Horseshit.

... regarding his motives and where he receives his instructions and paycheck.

You guys slay me! Love it so much! It just keeps getting better and better!

for the purpose of accusing them of sexist bullshit, too?

Nobody cares about this, it was just a lighthearted ribbing of Bernie.

Get some rest please.

....for the most posts hidden by a jury in a single thread?

non-ideological thought process.

If someone chooses a candidate based identity politics or other non-ideological means, that person will not necessarily understand the thought process of someone else who has chosen a candidate by a different thought process. You cannot use logic to convince someone that they should support the Boston Red Sox over the New York Yankees - it is a matter of identity and not choice based on ideology.

When you see someone make a completely asinine and illogical argument, you can infer that they have come to select their candidate based on a non-rational thought process. You will not change their mind by pointing out the errors in their arguments any more than you could persuade a Yankee fan to support the Red Sox by talking about batting averages and slugging percentages.