I need brain surgery

have you made a threat? hmm. isn't that a rules issue?



you need a full frontal lobotomy.








enjoy your brain salad surgery



Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

If you are supporting Hillary, you do need brain surgery although I doubt seriously that it will make a difference. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

and who says I'm supporting Hilary.... Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Pssst, Sissy Chap! The prerequisite is that you first have a brain, Sissy Chap. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1801450 Originally Posted by R.M.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1801450 Originally Posted by R.M.

and who says I'm supporting Hilary just because I oppose a fraudster / incompetent so called business man Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Where did the under cover come from? .... Originally Posted by R.M.

Notice how he's too chickenshit to answer my Hillary question. Originally Posted by lustylad

Whether she was prosecuted or not, based on her reckless behavior and willingness to put her personal political interests ahead of the nation's security, she is obviously unfit to run for President.

And it's not the first time either. It's not just the server and the emails. - then this should be fun. Let's be candid. She has shown a HISTORICAL PATTERN OF PUTTING HERSELF AND HER PERSONAL POLITICAL AMBITIONS AHEAD OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY:


1. She admitted she voted against the 2007 surge in Iraq (which succeeded in ending the war and stabilizing the country for Odumbo) entirely for political reasons (as disclosed by Bob Gates in his memoir "Duty"). - that's nothing and is literally not an issue for those of us who are Progressive. The more troubling decision would be when she supported the War in Iraq which proved to be a war false false on it's face, a way initiated by Bush to avenge the threat Saddam made against his father during Desert Storm. Nothing more nothing less. So the flip side to your question is does she get credit for supporting Bush's war?

2. She falsely and deliberately blamed the 2012 Benghazi attack on a youtube video in order to minimize the negative political fallout to her and Odumbo. - Again it doesn't matter several people died whether it was a result of dam youtube or not it's immaterial. Minimizing negative political fallout as a result of what caused it is STUPID ON IT'S FACE. This is why we dismiss people like you. You should be fighting to protect all Embassy's with US Military backed up by air forces but instead your hilariously focusing on a YouTube video discrepancy. It's laughable on it's face. I'm sure the dead Americans don't give a fuck if it was a youtube video or not and surely Obama or Hilary had no idea as to the initial cause so if they came out early with an explanation woop-te-doo that means nothing compared to the rationale behind not providing military aid in a timely fashion which can be technical and complicated.

3. She allowed Vladimir Putin to gain control of much of the world's uranium supply in return for contributions to the Clinton Foundation. FactCHECK.org throughly debunked this Fox News talking point.

Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction.

Even the president cannot prohibit a transaction without “credible evidence” that the “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security,” according to the regulation.

Through a spokeswoman, author Peter Schweizer told us he meant that Clinton could have forced the issue to the president’s desk. But that’s not what he said when he appeared on “Fox News Sunday,” where he discussed the uranium deal and his upcoming book to be released on May 5.

But Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions.


The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)


Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday,” made that point when he questioned Schweizer about his lack of evidence connecting the donations to the uranium deal

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-...-uranium-deal/

The evidence is clear - This is a woman who has ZERO SCRUPLES about trading our national security for money and power! And yet, she is a major party candidate for the Presidency of the United States? - again nothing but Speculation from right wing pundits. As secretary her power and power to corrupt and influence is linited. If anything if you want someone to take the blame then blame Obama not Hilary because as Commader in Chief the bucks stop with him. So Bengahzi and anything else under his watch should be blamed on him and not Hilary that is if you want to get technical with it. ;-)

It's enough to make grown men weep for this country! you better start weeping old timer ;-) because it will be Maddam President Originally Posted by lustylad