DescentBB

...could not be anymore clear:

ITT TB discusses the horrors of .jpeg compression and little else of note.

I see TG knee jerks it again. Can't discuss the merits so lets be a special snowflake and talk about compression instead of compassion.

what merits are there to that argument. Smith is a clearly political ax-to-grind type, especially proven when she waits years to file a bogus lawsuit.

And just what makes you think Seans mother has a political axe to grind? Because Hillary lied to her about the cause of her sons death?

I'll go with what the Stevens family has to say.

here is a REAL difference. Not some made up BS:

So do tell where anyone has been "mocking a mother's grief," unless it's mocking the suggestion that Hillary using a particular e-mail server somehow magically led to people getting killed.

woodchip wrote:And just what makes you think Seans mother has a political axe to grind? Because Hillary lied to her about the cause of her sons death?

She's just as heartbroken about the death of her son as Mr. and Mrs. Khan were, but the reaction from the media was very different.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ied-after/

callmeslick wrote:here is a REAL difference. Not some made up BS:

And yet, the Republicans are still feeding Americans that line like it's still an economic solution. Yes, the stock market is into epic territory, but the homeless rate in this country is still very high and the middle class is still shrinking.

Lets balance this out:

CORPORATE profits are at their highest level in at least 85 years. Employee compensation is at the lowest level in 65 years

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/busin ... slide.html

So who did the Obama regime help the most. Funny how the Dems keep talking about the working man but in reality they are held in thrall to their corporate and wall street masters.

when the tax code(the ONLY real recourse) is what it is, nothing changes. The GOP has proposed making it worse, Trump has added idiocy to that proposal. To Obama's credit, no such stupidity got passed on his 8 year watch.

Who's the only one to wear orange jumpsuits?

nice deflection, reflecting an utterly incompetent Trump candidacy. I give you hard points about the tax code, and you retort with?

You gave nothing except Trumps a idiot, Obama good. I merely threw in Hillary's qualifications.

I'm thinking that the new First Lady is measuring the drapes already:

I guess the young male interns better be careful

woodchip wrote:I guess the young male interns better be careful

Obsessed with the Clinton's sex life.

With good reason...

woodchip wrote:With good reason...

Because you want that Clinton D?

woodchip wrote:With good reason...

really? Why? It isn't like virtually every President hasn't had dalliances from Washington forward. Just because the press sheltered Presidents until around 1995, you can't really call it any determinant of Presidential ability.

woodchip wrote:With good reason...

Yes, let's hear your "good reason" for being obsessed with sex in the White House. Are you writing a juicy book to sell to people who read the Enquirer and Cosmo?

Sex in the White house is not a problem, inappropriate sex is…

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:With good reason...

really? Why? It isn't like virtually every President hasn't had dalliances from Washington forward. Just because the press sheltered Presidents until around 1995, you can't really call it any determinant of Presidential ability.

Kinda tough to shelter someone when the cum stained dress is presented. Wild Bill was the only on in modern history that so embarrassed himself. Show us where other presidents other than JFK (another oversexed Dem.) had "dalliances. And stop equating moral debauchery as not affecting presidential ability. If we can't expect some sort of moral propriety from our leaders, what next? Wife swapping parties in the white house.?

woodchip wrote:Kinda tough to shelter someone when the cum stained dress is presented.

come on, Woody. Are you suggesting that other Presidents hadn't been caught, with mistresses, in the act in the White House? Or, that a Monica Lewinski in those times would have EVER come to light? Hell, Hoover's mistress, and one of FDRs were literally taken from any public contact for months to prevent the CHANCE of scrutiny, essentially against their will. Those were different times, and in a way, far more mature people in the populace. They knew that ones sex life was PRIVATE and duties of the office PUBLIC and that there is little, if any, linkage between the two.

Wild Bill was the only on in modern history that so embarrassed himself. Show us where other presidents other than JFK (another oversexed Dem.) had "dalliances. And stop equating moral debauchery as not affecting presidential ability. If we can't expect some sort of moral propriety from our leaders, what next? Wife swapping parties in the white house.?

FDR, Truman, Ike,LBJ, Nixon(imagine!) proveably had mistresses, known to EVERYONE in DC. Too soon to tell but since then, I'd suspect that Bush Sr did, as well, and Reagan's private life prior to the Presidency was a hot mess. Of course, we know now that he was essentially senile for the last few years of his term, so past the dalliance stage. I suspect that you'd find Carter and Obama, and perhaps GW to be squeaky clean, but the last two were after Clinton made such matters a public thing.

Slander with no verification is so like you slick.

don't read much history, do you? Look up what I said about the proveables.