That woman to whom you refer has better ideas. The back and forth is among your crowd. The moving forward occurs when your crowd steps aside.![]()
What better ideas does she have?
That woman to whom you refer has better ideas. The back and forth is among your crowd. The moving forward occurs when your crowd steps aside.![]()
See also "Exhibit AAA" for a prime example.Your view of hate is essentially anything you don't agree with. This is exhibit A on the whole "ban hate speech" argument. Who knows what would be illegal to say if folks like you were left in charge?
I put "radical views" in bold, so that it would be understood my comment applies to that.When has AAA slandered anyone?
Judge where she wants to take the country by what she has done or tried to do in the past. (Trend following, if you will.)What better ideas does she have?
See also "Exhibit AAA" for a prime example.
Judge where she wants to take the country by what she has done in the past. (Trend following, if you will.)
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...lishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/
http://correctrecord.org/the-points...res-hillary-clintons-achievements-as-senator/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/lesli...clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves
(If you absolutely insist, I'll copy & paste.)
Compare that to the glorious Party of No Achievement.
Re "radical views". He's reactionary.Ah, can you link to where AAA is calling for speech to be banned? I didn't see it.
In response to your first comment, please read the first sentence of my prior post. In response to your second question, my opinions are aligned with the facts as they are presented. You seem to want to play a game by rules of your own choosing that fail to convince me of their utility. You know where I stand and why. There you have it.These are the same links you posted in the other thread, faulty for the same reasons they were in that thread. For instance, the first link describes her credentials. It doesn't talk about any of her ideas for the future. I asked you what ideas she has that are so outstanding, as you claimed.
Don't you have an opinion of your own on this subject? You haven't answered any specifics on the subject of your love for Clinton, even once.
In response to your first comment, please read the first sentence of my prior post. In response to your second question, my opinions are aligned with the facts as they are presented. You seem to want to play a game by rules of your own that fail to convince me of their utility. You know where I stand and why. There you have it.