Hating Hillary

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21709053-americas-probable-next-president-deeply-reviled-why-hating-hillary

That Mrs Clinton kept getting mired in scandals—including, by 1996, an alleged conflict of interest over a rotten property investment the Clintons had made in Arkansas—plainly didn’t help. They left an impression of her that was often unflattering. She came across as secretive and perhaps not quite punctilious in her observance of the law. There were suggestions she had overcharged clients of her legal practice (though she broke no law). But the most serious allegations, including several pursued by Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who uncovered Mr Clinton’s dallying with Monica Lewinsky, were dismissed as unproven or baseless.

A better characterisation of the antipathy to Mrs Clinton, which doubts about her probity reflected, was a vaguer sense that there was something inappropriate about her. This dogged her in Arkansas, where she was considered too independent-minded to be the First Lady of a southern state. It was unfair; even her reluctance to take her husband’s name was controversial. Yet sympathisers struggled with the way the personal and professional seemed to overlap with Mrs Clinton.

The wellspring of that concern was the Clintons’ marriage. To their detractors, it has always seemed a cold-hearted professional agreement, mainly to the advantage of Mrs Clinton. Yet those who saw her as cynically piggybacking on her husband’s success underrated her accomplishments; by her mid-20s, she was a Yale legal scholar and social activist of national repute; her speech at Wellesley had been widely covered in the press. Moreover, the Clintons were always upfront about their collaboration; Mr Clinton promised a “two for the price of one” presidency. And if that could help explain why Mrs Clinton never forsook her adulterous husband, something her critics also object to, there have been stranger marriages.


Even now—though it is reported Mr Clinton’s philandering never ended—friends of the couple convincingly describe their mutual affection. “They’re often holding hands,” says an aide to Mrs Clinton. Yet if their partnership was deeply rooted , that didn’t mean America had to like it. Indeed, there were reasons not to.

During her husband’s first presidential run, Mrs Clinton was allegedly involved in trashing the reputations of women who had claimed to have had affairs with him. It was the sort of allegation that might be forgiven in a jealous wife, or in a professional campaign manager. But in a woman who claimed to believe her husband’s protestations of innocence, and an avowed feminist, it seemed obnoxious.

As the most powerful First Lady there had ever been—with an office in the West Wing and responsibility for reforming a health-care system that represented 15% of the economy—she faced stiffer attacks. Again, these were often exaggerated responses to errors for which she was only partly to blame. “Hillarycare” was too complicated and pursued too secretively. But though the unelected Mrs Clinton was partly to blame, so was her husband. Yet it was she who got it in the neck. At a speech she gave for the reform in Seattle, protesters waved “Heil Hillary” placards and invited her to “Fly yo’ broom”.

Both Clintons were flawed. Yet the ferocity of such barrages reflected something more: the deep fault-lines the couple were straddling. The first baby-boomer president and his pushy wife represented a cultural shift that much of America feared. “She was not only a baby-boomer but a strong woman, which was felt by some to be a threat,” says Robert Reich, labour secretary in Mr Clinton’s administration. The obvious inference, that Mrs Clinton’s unpopularity was fuelled by sexism, has always annoyed her critics almost as much as she has. But it is otherwise hard to explain the gap between the measured criticism Mrs Clinton’s behaviour has sometimes invited and the unbridled loathing that has shown up in its place.

It was also apparent in the fact that Mrs Clinton’s standing improved after the revelation of her husband’s canoodling with Ms Lewinsky. Recast as a wronged woman, a less threatening female archetype, she seemed more likeable. Moreover, the criticisms most often levelled at Mrs Clinton are plainly sexist. She is said to be “shrill”, “ambitious” and, in the gutter where Mr Trump fills his opposition files, deviant.

Whenever she has sought power, including in her two Senate and first presidential campaigns, such criticisms have been aired, and in the latter case her ratings plunged. That she was in for another pounding this time was predictable—yet the pitch of loathing is unprecedented.

[clambake]

oh.....i thought we were forming a club.

[DMC]

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Lady de Rothschild (born Lynn Forester; July 2, 1954) is an American-British businesswoman who is the chief executive officer of E.L. Rothschild, a holding company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_company) she owns with her third husband, Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Robert_de_Rothschild), a member of the Rothschild family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Forester_de_Rothschild#cite_note-Rothschild-1) The company manages investments in The Economist Group, owner of The Economist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist) magazine, Congressional Quarterly and the Economist Intelligence Unit, E.L. Rothschild LP, a leading independent wealth management firm in the United States, as well as real estate, agricultural and food interests.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Forester_de_Rothschild#cite_note-interview-2)

Rothschild has donated to all of the Clintons' federal races since 1992.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Forester_de_Rothschild#cite_note-11) Although Rothschild was a major fund raiser for Hillary Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton)'s 2008 presidential bid, she transferred her support to Republican candidate John McCain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) when Barack Obama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) beat Clinton, becoming a minor celebrity on cable television at the time for attacking Obama in a series of interviews.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Forester_de_Rothschild#cite_note-Jersey_Lady-6) On June 22, 2011, she hosted a fundraiser for Jon Huntsman, Jr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.)'s presidential campaign.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Forester_de_Rothschild#cite_note-12) In the summer of 2016, she hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016).[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Forester_de_Rothschild#cite_note-asktheultrarichclinton-13)


Surrogate doing surrogate things.

[boutons_deux]

"Mrs Clinton kept getting mired in scandals" :lol

They were all Repug/VRWC misogynist witch hunting, harassment, all fabricated smoke and NO FIRE.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21709053-americas-probable-next-president-deeply-reviled-why-hating-hillary

That Mrs Clinton kept getting mired in scandals—including, by 1996, an alleged conflict of interest over a rotten property investment the Clintons had made in Arkansas—plainly didn’t help. They left an impression of her that was often unflattering. She came across as secretive and perhaps not quite punctilious in her observance of the law. There were suggestions she had overcharged clients of her legal practice (though she broke no law). But the most serious allegations, including several pursued by Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who uncovered Mr Clinton’s dallying with Monica Lewinsky, were dismissed as unproven or baseless.

A better characterisation of the antipathy to Mrs Clinton, which doubts about her probity reflected, was a vaguer sense that there was something inappropriate about her. This dogged her in Arkansas, where she was considered too independent-minded to be the First Lady of a southern state. It was unfair; even her reluctance to take her husband’s name was controversial. Yet sympathisers struggled with the way the personal and professional seemed to overlap with Mrs Clinton.

The wellspring of that concern was the Clintons’ marriage. To their detractors, it has always seemed a cold-hearted professional agreement, mainly to the advantage of Mrs Clinton. Yet those who saw her as cynically piggybacking on her husband’s success underrated her accomplishments; by her mid-20s, she was a Yale legal scholar and social activist of national repute; her speech at Wellesley had been widely covered in the press. Moreover, the Clintons were always upfront about their collaboration; Mr Clinton promised a “two for the price of one” presidency. And if that could help explain why Mrs Clinton never forsook her adulterous husband, something her critics also object to, there have been stranger marriages.


Even now—though it is reported Mr Clinton’s philandering never ended—friends of the couple convincingly describe their mutual affection. “They’re often holding hands,” says an aide to Mrs Clinton. Yet if their partnership was deeply rooted , that didn’t mean America had to like it. Indeed, there were reasons not to.

During her husband’s first presidential run, Mrs Clinton was allegedly involved in trashing the reputations of women who had claimed to have had affairs with him. It was the sort of allegation that might be forgiven in a jealous wife, or in a professional campaign manager. But in a woman who claimed to believe her husband’s protestations of innocence, and an avowed feminist, it seemed obnoxious.

As the most powerful First Lady there had ever been—with an office in the West Wing and responsibility for reforming a health-care system that represented 15% of the economy—she faced stiffer attacks. Again, these were often exaggerated responses to errors for which she was only partly to blame. “Hillarycare” was too complicated and pursued too secretively. But though the unelected Mrs Clinton was partly to blame, so was her husband. Yet it was she who got it in the neck. At a speech she gave for the reform in Seattle, protesters waved “Heil Hillary” placards and invited her to “Fly yo’ broom”.

Both Clintons were flawed. Yet the ferocity of such barrages reflected something more: the deep fault-lines the couple were straddling. The first baby-boomer president and his pushy wife represented a cultural shift that much of America feared. “She was not only a baby-boomer but a strong woman, which was felt by some to be a threat,” says Robert Reich, labour secretary in Mr Clinton’s administration. The obvious inference, that Mrs Clinton’s unpopularity was fuelled by sexism, has always annoyed her critics almost as much as she has. But it is otherwise hard to explain the gap between the measured criticism Mrs Clinton’s behaviour has sometimes invited and the unbridled loathing that has shown up in its place.

It was also apparent in the fact that Mrs Clinton’s standing improved after the revelation of her husband’s canoodling with Ms Lewinsky. Recast as a wronged woman, a less threatening female archetype, she seemed more likeable. Moreover, the criticisms most often levelled at Mrs Clinton are plainly sexist. She is said to be “shrill”, “ambitious” and, in the gutter where Mr Trump fills his opposition files, deviant.

Whenever she has sought power, including in her two Senate and first presidential campaigns, such criticisms have been aired, and in the latter case her ratings plunged. That she was in for another pounding this time was predictable—yet the pitch of loathing is unprecedented.

If you pause long enough between sentences you can hear the bumping of Clinton and Rothschild clams.

[Clipper Nation]

OP secretes more estrogen than Hillary ever has.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well it looks like the usual suspects still have poor reading skills.

It wasn't a Clinton puff piece, dimwits.

[boutons_deux]

Well it looks like the usual suspects still have poor reading skills.

It wasn't a Clinton puff piece, dimwits.

"alleged" "seemed", no actual evidence. All Repug smoke machine.

Fuck the Repugs, they fuckup America, they fuckover Americans.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I post accredited articles from objective sources for a few days


:lmao



http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21709053-americas-probable-next-president-deeply-reviled-why-hating-hillary

That Mrs Clinton kept getting mired in scandals—including, by 1996, an alleged conflict of interest over a rotten property investment the Clintons had made in Arkansas—plainly didn’t help. They left an impression of her that was often unflattering. She came across as secretive and perhaps not quite punctilious in her observance of the law. There were suggestions she had overcharged clients of her legal practice (though she broke no law). But the most serious allegations, including several pursued by Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who uncovered Mr Clinton’s dallying with Monica Lewinsky, were dismissed as unproven or baseless.

A better characterisation of the antipathy to Mrs Clinton, which doubts about her probity reflected, was a vaguer sense that there was something inappropriate about her. This dogged her in Arkansas, where she was considered too independent-minded to be the First Lady of a southern state. It was unfair; even her reluctance to take her husband’s name was controversial. Yet sympathisers struggled with the way the personal and professional seemed to overlap with Mrs Clinton.

The wellspring of that concern was the Clintons’ marriage. To their detractors, it has always seemed a cold-hearted professional agreement, mainly to the advantage of Mrs Clinton. Yet those who saw her as cynically piggybacking on her husband’s success underrated her accomplishments; by her mid-20s, she was a Yale legal scholar and social activist of national repute; her speech at Wellesley had been widely covered in the press. Moreover, the Clintons were always upfront about their collaboration; Mr Clinton promised a “two for the price of one” presidency. And if that could help explain why Mrs Clinton never forsook her adulterous husband, something her critics also object to, there have been stranger marriages.


Even now—though it is reported Mr Clinton’s philandering never ended—friends of the couple convincingly describe their mutual affection. “They’re often holding hands,” says an aide to Mrs Clinton. Yet if their partnership was deeply rooted , that didn’t mean America had to like it. Indeed, there were reasons not to.

During her husband’s first presidential run, Mrs Clinton was allegedly involved in trashing the reputations of women who had claimed to have had affairs with him. It was the sort of allegation that might be forgiven in a jealous wife, or in a professional campaign manager. But in a woman who claimed to believe her husband’s protestations of innocence, and an avowed feminist, it seemed obnoxious.

As the most powerful First Lady there had ever been—with an office in the West Wing and responsibility for reforming a health-care system that represented 15% of the economy—she faced stiffer attacks. Again, these were often exaggerated responses to errors for which she was only partly to blame. “Hillarycare” was too complicated and pursued too secretively. But though the unelected Mrs Clinton was partly to blame, so was her husband. Yet it was she who got it in the neck. At a speech she gave for the reform in Seattle, protesters waved “Heil Hillary” placards and invited her to “Fly yo’ broom”.

Both Clintons were flawed. Yet the ferocity of such barrages reflected something more: the deep fault-lines the couple were straddling. The first baby-boomer president and his pushy wife represented a cultural shift that much of America feared. “She was not only a baby-boomer but a strong woman, which was felt by some to be a threat,” says Robert Reich, labour secretary in Mr Clinton’s administration. The obvious inference, that Mrs Clinton’s unpopularity was fuelled by sexism, has always annoyed her critics almost as much as she has. But it is otherwise hard to explain the gap between the measured criticism Mrs Clinton’s behaviour has sometimes invited and the unbridled loathing that has shown up in its place.

It was also apparent in the fact that Mrs Clinton’s standing improved after the revelation of her husband’s canoodling with Ms Lewinsky. Recast as a wronged woman, a less threatening female archetype, she seemed more likeable. Moreover, the criticisms most often levelled at Mrs Clinton are plainly sexist. She is said to be “shrill”, “ambitious” and, in the gutter where Mr Trump fills his opposition files, deviant.

Whenever she has sought power, including in her two Senate and first presidential campaigns, such criticisms have been aired, and in the latter case her ratings plunged. That she was in for another pounding this time was predictable—yet the pitch of loathing is unprecedented.

[DMC]

Well it looks like the usual suspects still have poor reading skills.

"Recast as a wronged woman, a less threatening female archetype, she seemed more likeable."

lol...that is some feminazi estrogen laced shit right there Fuzzy Labia

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yet the antipathy to Mrs Clinton is not merely a right-wing hate fantasy: she is also mistrusted within her party. Almost a third of Democrats said they disagreed with the FBI’s recent decision not to prosecute her—their presidential candidate—over her e-mail arrangements. It is hard to think of another politician whose public image is so at odds with the judgment of her peers.

For Mrs Clinton’s cheerleaders, the disparity is enough to prove she has been traduced. Yet politics is about winning over the public, as well as colleagues, and the fact that Mrs Clinton is much less good at this is partly her fault. For such a practised politician—she delivered her first major address, on graduating from Wellesley College, almost half a century ago—she is a dreadful public speaker. Her speeches are mostly wonkish and dull, workaday constructions of a politician who appears to view human progress as a series of nudging policy improvements. Mr Obama’s vision is not dissimilar; but where the president elevates it with magical rhetoric, Mrs Clinton’s performance is so hammy as to annoy. “She sucks the life out of a room,” groans a member of her husband’s separate (and in fact rival) adoring coterie.

Just a glowing endorsement. :rolleyes

DMC you are trying to hard. And for all that effort, so much fail.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And if you are going to try to wound me you should try something other than misogyny.

[DMC]

Just a glowing endorsement. :rolleyes

DMC you are trying to hard. And for all that effort, so much fail.
From the Taco Bumper article:

"The predominant journalistic take on Mrs Clinton’s primary campaign was that she risked losing to a wacky socialist no-hoper. In fact, she crushed Mr Sanders so utterly—by almost 4m votes, in the end—he clearly never stood a chance."


From the NY Times:

Top officials at the Democratic National Committee (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_national_committee/index.html?inline=nyt-org) criticized and mocked Senator Bernie Sanders (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/bernie-sanders-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per) of Vermont during the primary campaign, even though the organization publicly insisted that it was neutral in the race, according to committee emails made public on Friday by WikiLeaks (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/wikileaks/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

In one of the emails, dated May 21, Mark Paustenbach, a committee communications official, wrote to a colleague about the possibility of urging reporters to write that Mr. Sanders’s campaign was “a mess” after a glitch on the committee’s servers gave it access to Clinton voter data.
“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” Mr. Paustenbach wrote to Luis Miranda, the communications director for the committee.

[DMC]

And if you are going to try to wound me you should try something other than misogyny.You use a media source that has long standing financial ties to the Clintons and then pretend it's not an issue. I think you've wounded yourself plenty already.

[spurraider21]

Her voice is shrill. Michelle obamas voice isn't shrill.

LOL if you call her ambitious you're sexist. Lol microagrressions

[vy65]

What a shitty fucking article

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You use a media source that has long standing financial ties to the Clintons and then pretend it's not an issue. I think you've wounded yourself plenty already.

Sorry but there is no evidence that there is any executive control over the company or that the holding company uses said control. You are using innuendo and that is it.

What I would like to know is where this take was regarding Fox News who had the former GOP media director as the top executive? Shall we find news articles describing how Ailes micromanaged Fox News or how his proteges have taken over, Fox News watcher?

[DMC]

Sorry but there is no evidence that there is any executive control over the company or that the holding company uses said control. You are using innuendo and that is it.

What I would like to know is where this take was regarding Fox News who had the former GOP media director as the top executive? Shall we find news articles describing how Ailes micromanaged Fox News or how his proteges have taken over, Fox News watcher?When you see me quoting Fox news, knock yourself out. I don't watch Fox News. I have no idea who Ailes is, can't tell you who is the news anchor on Fox.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When you see me quoting Fox news, knock yourself out. I don't watch Fox News. I have no idea who Ailes is, can't tell you who is the news anchor on Fox.

I don't believe you.

[DMC]

I don't believe you.

Reuters..

I stopped visiting Fox or CNN or MSNBC news. Best way to get US news is from another country, US has too many niche media markets who push niche agendas.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

You said that you didn't even know who Fox News anchors were and pled total ignorance. You just belied your own statement trying to win a point, dim. Calling me stupid is just rich in that context.

And acting like you are not deceitful is disingenuous but thank you for illustrating it for everyone here. Saves me time.

[DMC]

You said that you didn't even know who Fox News anchors were and pled total ignorance. You just belied your own statement trying to win a point, dim. Calling me stupid is just rich in that context.

And acting like you are not deceitful is disingenuous but thank you for illustrating it for everyone here. Saves me time. I don't know who they are. I stopped watching them many years ago.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know who they are. I stopped watching them many years ago.

I get that you revel in the nihilism that the interwebs allows. Yet you simply ring hollow.

[DMC]

I get that you revel in the nihilism that the interwebs allows. Yet you simply ring hollow.
You try to pigeonhole everyone into some category you can be against, and since I don't conform to your stereotypical "repug", since I'm atheist, since I voted for Obama in the last elections, since I hold some liberal stances on some issues and conservative stances on others, you assume I'm lying because everyone must be either Moore or Coulter.

It just shows that, even though your approach is wide, it's very shallow so it's just an illusion. You're full of shit. You know this and it makes you uncomfortable to face it.

The fact is you repeatedly cite a source that is highly questionable because of the ties it's owners have with the candidate. You'd have no issue admitting it if you weren't full of shit, but instead you try the tu quoque fallacy, assuming that I accept Fox News as a reliable source.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You try to pigeonhole everyone into some category you can be against

Nice irony, hypocrite. You've been trying to do the above to me for the past few days.

Unverifiable storytime is fun and all but its also completely obtuse to the point I just made. It's also obtuse to this place where there are hundreds of trolls all with different characters and personas. Now you are trying to sell yourself as the real one whose claims we should believe? :lol what a fucking moron.

As for shallow, you completely ignored my rebuttal to your argument about the Economist and went after the facile point of fact about whether or not you personally watched Fox News while ignoring the meat of the argument. Shallow is as shallow does, dimwit.

[DMC]

Nice irony, hypocrite.

Unverifiable storytime is fun and all but its also completely obtuse to the point I just made. It's also obtuse to this place where there are hundreds of trolls all with different characters and personas. Now you are trying to sell yourself as the real one? :lol what a fucking moron.

As for shallow, you completely ignored my rebuttal to your argument about the Economist and went after the facile point of fact about whether or not you personally watched Fox News while ignoring the meat of the argument. Shallow is as shallow does, dimwit.

Your rebuttal was to cherry pick a paragraph or two and pretend the entire article was in that same tone. You failed so many times just in this thread alone:

1. Biased source that I handily rendered moot
2. Assuming I watch Fox News
3. Calling me a liar until I showed you predated evidence
4. Continuing to move the goalpost and still missing the kick

Poor surrogate, all dressed up in vagina and no where to bleed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your rebuttal was to cherry pick a paragraph or two and pretend the entire article was in that same tone. You failed so many times just in this thread alone:

1. Biased source that I handily rendered moot
2. Assuming I watch Fox News
3. Calling me a liar until I showed you predated evidence
4. Continuing to move the goalpost and still missing the kick

Poor surrogate, all dressed up in vagina and no where to bleed.

And now we have more juvenile misogyny followed by false characterizations. How droll.

I don't find you credible and again unverifiable story time is fun. You cannot address this issue directly. You just double down on the assumption that you are credible. Obtuseness fits you but given your various state of trolls posts over the years, it just makes you seem incredibly full of shit.

I posted several paragraphs from the article that were not supportive of Clinton. That belied your narrative of it being a puff piece you supported by what was a rather innocuous sentence from the piece. That is all that you have done. And I am the shallow one?

You have not demonstrated in the least that Rothschild has editorial control of the Economist; that was my central argument which you have yet to even acknowledge. You completely dodged the comparative issue with Fox News management claiming to not even know who Rodger Ailes is -which supports you not being credible on several levels-- amongst other dodges.

[DMC]

http://geekologie.com/2016/03/03/cat-lady.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And now DMC has completely abandoned any semblance of merit. Thanks for the white flag, little man.

:cry but Fuzzy is shallow :cry

[DarrinS]

If you ever hear a man utter the word "misogyny", kick that faggot down a flight of stairs. Or, is that problematic?

[DMC]

And now DMC has completely abandoned any semblance of merit. Thanks for the white flag, little man.

:cry but Fuzzy is shallow :cry
So I go from fat to little in just a few paragraphs.

Meow

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So I go from fat to little in just a few paragraphs.

Meow

You can be fat and little at the same time, dim.

Take the oompa loompa on the right.

https://sneakerpedia.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/oompa-loompa-group.jpg

That is how I see you.

Small is also more than stature.

That is as I know you.

[DarrinS]

This guy just uttered "Misogyny!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J1_kVxUS4I

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now we have the innuendos towards violence. :rolleyes

Sophomoric machismo is all you have.

[DMC]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/14/d6/5c/14d65caf0c96f287e067438c41e42729.jpg

[spurraider21]

If you ever hear a man utter the word "misogyny", kick that faggot down a flight of stairs. Or, is that problematic?

something something social inequity

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh look more faux machismo on the interwebs from little men. Oh noes my ego is shattered!

[DMC]

Oh look more faux machismo on the interwebs from little men. Oh noes my ego is shattered!

Do you have hypogonadism? Serious question. Your responses are so laden with estrogen my nuts twitch when I read them.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnonymousGlobo/status/793602434337767428
Anonymous has hacked the Bradley Foundation

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnonymousGlobo/status/793602434337767428/photo/1

[Spurminator]

I have no idea what this thread is about but this probably goes here.

793819509937364992

[UNT Eagles 2016]

http://geekologie.com/2016/03/03/cat-lady.jpg

Bet she still goes in the toilet instead of outside as a real cat would. Also bet she eats mostly vegetables unlike a real cat's meat based diet.