Would you punch Hillary in the face?

[HazelGod]

That seems to be the instinctive reaction she inspires with her presence...

 

[th3on3]

if i was that baby i would tap her jaw lol

 

[hotbtminla]

if i was that baby i would tap her jaw lol

... while taking a massive dump in her hands. :biggrin1:

 

[th3on3]

then take my diaper off and piss in her mouth

 

[Freddie53]

I don't like the way this thread is going. We moderators are being swamped with reports from the Obama and Clinton supporters here at the LPSG to step in and referee the discussion concerning the Obama adn Clinton race.

Folks you can't have it both ways. I'm using this as an analogy here not a specific reference but, if you want to throw mud at Obama or at Hillary, expect mud to be thrown back at you.

If we moderators were to step in to stop the mud throwing against one candidate, then we would need to do that to the mud slinging on the other side.

I am not attempting to define what is mud slinging. I am trying to convey that any action we should take censoring discussion of a political subject would have to go both ways.

Here is a good example, If we allow a post suggesting that the baby piss in Hillary's mouth, then we have to also allow the post suggesting the baby piss in Obama's mouth as well.

What is bothering me is that members are only complaining about the posts with the baby pissing in their preferred candidate's mouth. It seems to be perfectly fine for the baby to piss in the mouth of the candidate that they are against as long as the baby doesn't piss in their candidate's mouth.

(Th3on3, I am just using your post as an example. It is too good of one to pass by to express my feelings and frustrations on the subject in general, not a personal comment at you. I believe that your comment was a joke. But the over all situation is not a joke.)

I don't care, that is, until and when members want me to step in and referee the contest. In which case, both sides can piss or both sides will be barred from pissing. Doesn't matter to me as long as the rules are the same for everybody.

Though I'm quite sure both candidates would prefer that we bar the babies from pissing in both their mouths.:wink:

 

[ZOS23xy]

I think going only by the title of the thread that it is extreme. Foolish me, I had to look. No value here.

 

[HazelGod]

Folks you can't have it both ways. I'm using this as an analogy here not a specific reference but, if you want to throw mud at Obama or at Hillary, expect mud to be thrown back at you.

I posted this in the "Funny Stuff" forum for a reason...there's no "discussion" to be monitored or moderated. If any of the commentary here showed up in the threads running over in the "Etc." forum, I could see the cause for concern...but not here.

Sad that some people here can't lighten up and take a joke. If they don't like the humor, they can get right the fuck over it, in my opinion.

 

[vince]

I posted this in the "Funny Stuff" forum for a reason...there's no "discussion" to be monitored or moderated. If any of the commentary here showed up in the threads running over in the "Etc." forum, I could see the cause for concern...but not here.

Sad that some people here can't lighten up and take a joke. If they don't like the humor, they can get right the fuck over it, in my opinion.

I'm a Hillary supporter (kinda) and I like the humour too. It's a cute picture and I see nothing wrong with posting it in the Funny Stuff forum. I do think the pissing in her mouth comment is a bit over the top.

 

[ZOS23xy]

I'm a Hillary supporter (kinda) and I like the humour too. It's a cute picture and I see nothing wrong with posting it in the Funny Stuff forum. I do think the pissing in her mouth comment is a bit over the top.

That's kind of what I meant to convey. There's fun and there's no fun at all.

Seems anger and political humor don't go well hand in hand with certain kinds.

 

[Catchoftheday]

Who is this Hillary guy and why do you think I would want to punch him in the face??

 

[invisibleman]

"Would you punch Hillary in the face?"

I wouldn't punch Hillary Clinton in the face but I would like to punch Ann Coulter in her stomach though. Hillary can sit down and watch while I do so.

 

[ZOS23xy]

"Would you punch Hillary in the face?"

I wouldn't punch Hillary Clinton in the face but I would like to punch Ann Coulter in her stomach though. Hillary can sit down and watch while I do so.

No. A more interesting way would be to tie her to a chair and make her listen to the sound of her voice, amplified. From one of her audio book tapes or CD. And each time she protests, it would just get louder.

And make her drink lots of coffee and eat apples.

 

[visualalert]

"Would you punch Hillary in the face?"

I wouldn't punch Hillary Clinton in the face but I would like to punch Ann Coulter in her stomach though. Hillary can sit down and watch while I do so.

And interestingly enough, no one (moderator or not) will object to this spectacular example of enlightened, progressive, civil and intellectual discourse.

I love you guys, I really do. Sometimes I think Karl Rove writes posts like this using pseudonyms to convince normal people that "progressives" really are the intolerant, hate-filled people they so often appear to be.

Besides, why so down on Ann? She hates the apparent Republican nominee and prefers Hillary:

AnnCoulter.com - Archived Article: FROM GOLDWATER GIRL TO HILLARY GIRL

And besides, she's not a wuss. She might punch you back.

 

[B_Monster]

Well said Freddie.

I don't like the way this thread is going. We moderators are being swamped with reports from the Obama and Clinton supporters here at the LPSG to step in and referee the discussion concerning the Obama adn Clinton race.

Folks you can't have it both ways. I'm using this as an analogy here not a specific reference but, if you want to throw mud at Obama or at Hillary, expect mud to be thrown back at you.

If we moderators were to step in to stop the mud throwing against one candidate, then we would need to do that to the mud slinging on the other side.

I am not attempting to define what is mud slinging. I am trying to convey that any action we should take censoring discussion of a political subject would have to go both ways.

Here is a good example, If we allow a post suggesting that the baby piss in Hillary's mouth, then we have to also allow the post suggesting the baby piss in Obama's mouth as well.

What is bothering me is that members are only complaining about the posts with the baby pissing in their preferred candidate's mouth. It seems to be perfectly fine for the baby to piss in the mouth of the candidate that they are against as long as the baby doesn't piss in their candidate's mouth.

(Th3on3, I am just using your post as an example. It is too good of one to pass by to express my feelings and frustrations on the subject in general, not a personal comment at you. I believe that your comment was a joke. But the over all situation is not a joke.)

I don't care, that is, until and when members want me to step in and referee the contest. In which case, both sides can piss or both sides will be barred from pissing. Doesn't matter to me as long as the rules are the same for everybody.

Though I'm quite sure both candidates would prefer that we bar the babies from pissing in both their mouths.:wink:

 

[invisibleman]

And besides, she's not a wuss. She (Ann Coulter) might punch you back.

Well, I guess we will be fighting beyotches, won't we?

Hillary will film it and put it on YouTube. Ann Coulter will be the one with two black eyes. Torn out hair.

And her major busted fat lip yappin'..."Invisibleman. You. you. you faggot! I'll get you--I'll get you. You faggot. Faggot!! (insert bitch scream!!!) Boitch."
Ann Coulter will be all crying and shit.

"What ya gonna do, Ann? Write a book about me? Call me faggot some more?"
I pimp slap her mouf and kick my black SKETCHERS shoe up her cunt.

:rofl:

 

[invisibleman]

I am not attempting to define what is mud slinging. I am trying to convey that any action we should take censoring discussion of a political subject would have to go both ways.

Here is a good example, If we allow a post suggesting that the baby piss in Hillary's mouth, then we have to also allow the post suggesting the baby piss in Obama's mouth as well.

What is bothering me is that members are only complaining about the posts with the baby pissing in their preferred candidate's mouth. It seems to be perfectly fine for the baby to piss in the mouth of the candidate that they are against as long as the baby doesn't piss in their candidate's mouth.

Actually, I think that the baby should pee in Ann Coulter's mouf. And make her eat a little baby poo.

 

[B_dumbcow]

No, but I might leave an embarrassing 'deposit' in her house... :wink:

 

[D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead]

Well, I guess we will be fighting beyotches, won't we?

Hillary will film it and put it on YouTube. Ann Coulter will be the one with two black eyes. Torn out hair.

And her major busted fat lip yappin'..."Invisibleman. You. you. you faggot! I'll get you--I'll get you. You faggot. Faggot!! (insert bitch scream!!!) Boitch."
Ann Coulter will be all crying and shit.

"What ya gonna do, Ann? Write a book about me? Call me faggot some more?"
I pimp slap her mouf and kick my black SKETCHERS shoe up her cunt.

:rofl:

Yeah, reminds me that if Ann Coulter called John Edwards a fag, she'd sure as heck think I'm a fag, too. Not that she gets final call on fagginess. She falls under the category heading of Suspiciously Manly Woman.

 

[HazelGod]

Folks, this topic is supposed to be about nastiest, most self-aggrandizing, disingenuous cunt in American politics...so please stop talking about Ann Coulter.

:biggrin1:

 

[ZOS23xy]

Well, that's what Ann Coulter is, isn't she?