On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 9:22:46 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 08/26/2016 05:20 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:08:42 -0700, T wrote:

On 08/26/2016 04:51 PM, T wrote:
On 08/25/2016 06:17 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 5:43:24 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 8/25/2016 5:26 PM, T wrote:
On 08/25/2016 02:20 PM, ChairMan wrote:
I don't like Trump, but I despise this.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ BdNHf1g4ivA

You got a better link?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BdNHf1g4ivA

I always remove "embed" stuff and fix YouTube links so I can see WTF
they're about. I also trim all the tracking content if it's present
from the address and wind up with a link like this. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdNHf1g4ivA

[8~{} Uncle Link Monster


That worked. Thank you!

E gads! And Dems and RINOs want to vote for her because of
her gentianella.

Apparently Bill preferred other women's genitalia over hers.


Oh ya. She's the women's candidate. Smears rape victims,

So now Mr T, the alleged conservative constitutionalist, thinks that
an attorney, appointed and essentially forced by a judge to defend
a rapists, is smearing a rape victim by presenting the defendants
case. Did the judge call it smearing? The judge had to approve
what was going on.



smears
Bimbo eruptions, tolerates a cheating husband so she can
ride in on his accomplishments.

So being the bible thumping conservative, you also condemn Trump's
cheating too, right? Hillary didn't cheat, but Trump did. So,
Trump isn't fit to be president either, right?


What has come of our beloved
country that this hoodlum would even be walking the streets
a free man?


Again, it's shocking how people who pretend to be constitutionalists
don't understand the basics. Aside from the headlines from some
right wing nut website, have you even looked at the facts of the case?
The case was far from airtight, it wound up in a plea deal. If the
prosecutor felt they had a case he could have gone to trial. If the
evidence was so overwhelming, the plea deal so outrageous, the judge
could have rejected it. This is nothing new, it happens all the time.
And you make it sound like this was Hillary's bread and butter, that
she had a lot of these cases. It's one case from 40 years ago, a case
that she didn't want to take, tried to get out of, but the judge refused.
Hardly the damning indictment of Hillary, it actually shows the mad
desperation of the Trumpets.