Bigly

[JPaul]

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/trump-refuses-to-accept-election-results/

TRUMP’S “HORRIFYING” ANSWER JUST COST HIM. BIGLY.

[IdolEyes787]

The truly disturbing thing is not Trump's comment but that 39% of those polled believe he won the debate.

Disagreeing with, even hating Clinton I understand but a complete avoidance of the truth of what one has just witnessed is a form of delusion so profound that it borders on fanaticism.

[megabyteme]

I cannot bring myself to vote for either.

Is there an option where I can imagine the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man?

[mjmacky]

I cannot bring myself to vote for either.

Is there an option where I can imagine the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man?
Ray thought that wouldn't be so bad, and look how that turned out

[mjmacky]

There are very few career politicians that I like, but Hillary is not among them. There's a big list of those I despise, but Hillary is not among them either. She instead falls into the big pool of politicians to whom I'm apathetic.

In that large pool of inert, career politicians are people who are largely motivated by elevating their status, sating their egos, and what remains of their initial intent of serving the public. Hillary doesn't really stand out from the rest of them. The hatred toward her specifically is sort of baffling.

Pit her against an inept, nauseating moron of a clown lacking the Magoo gene for a position of power, and it should be apparent that electing the first female president of the US is preferable to the only alternative.

I am not voting only because I misplaced my voter ID card (probably left it in the car I sold) and it seems like it'll be a pain to submit an absentee ballot.

[Skiz]

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/trump-refuses-to-accept-election-results/

TRUMP’S “HORRIFYING” ANSWER JUST COST HIM. BIGLY.

It didn't cost him anything. After last nights debate is the first time since the first debate that he's actually closed in the polls by any measurable number. The only real audible thing I could hear was a laugh.

[shaina]

The truly disturbing thing is not Trump's comment but that 39% of those polled believe he won the debate.
Disagreeing with, even hating Clinton I understand but a complete avoidance of the truth of what one has just witnessed is a form of delusion so profound that it borders on fanaticism.

:artist::artist::artist:

[shaina]

I cannot bring myself to vote for either.

That is UN-AMERICAN!! :noes:

[Skiz]

The truly disturbing thing is not Trump's comment but that 39% of those polled believe he won the debate.

Disagreeing with, even hating Clinton I understand but a complete avoidance of the truth of what one has just witnessed is a form of delusion so profound that it borders on fanaticism.

Well, when they've made up their mind who they're going to vote for, of course they're going to say he won. Another portion of people probably just cant see how someone as dull and stiff as a statue that deflects all night could have won either.

[shaina]

Well, when they've made up their mind who they're going to vote for, of course they're going to say he won. Another portion of people probably just cant see how someone as dull and stiff as a statue that deflects all night could have won either.

Just so i am on the record here, and a Canadian citizen...

No COMMENT.

[manker]

The truly disturbing thing is not Trump's comment but that 39% of those polled believe he won the debate.

Disagreeing with, even hating Clinton I understand but a complete avoidance of the truth of what one has just witnessed is a form of delusion so profound that it borders on fanaticism.

Well, when they've made up their mind who they're going to vote for, of course they're going to say he won. Then you are one of the fanatical idiots that Idol was talking about.

How about a sports analogy. It involves a tie, mind, so suspend disbelief for a moment.
You're a big fan of red sports team, they're playing blue sports team - their hated rivals.
You're at the match and red sports team don't even leave their own half, the hated blue sports team have 82% of possession, 40 shots at goal, 22 of which are on target. A combination of blind luck and referee ineptitude mean that the game finishes scoreless. There is no tangible winner.

You're on the bus on the way home and an acquaintance of yours, who is a fan of green sports team, looks up from his phone and he sees you wearing your red sports team shirt. He says; '0-0, damn. Who had the better of the game?'

Do you answer red or blue?

Bear in mind that green team sports fan will see the highlights later on TV, lying would just make you look like a fanatical idiot.

[manker]

I'm a big fan of the United Manchester sports team.
I was at the game on Monday when we heroically didn't lose against the racist Liver Pool sports team.

Though much adversity from the overly compensating reverse-biased Altrincham umpire and cheating from the cheating Liver sports team participants, we stoically allowed the game to finish 0-0 despite being the morally and technically superior sports team.

I think we can all learn something from that.

[mjmacky]

You make a grand effort to sincerely communicate your point through a football analogy, manker, but I'm going to call into question the entire underlying tone of this topic.

Debates are not sporting events, so there will never be a tangible win or loss. Debates result in revelations, persuasions, consequences, etc., and establishing a winner undermines the purpose, which is to explore the minds of the debaters or set topics, generally speaking.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is really no point in having Clinton debate Trump. Both of them are well known to the public that would even bother watching it. Trump has been putting out his buffoonery on an almost daily basis since he started his campaign, which is covered extensively by media sources, and Clinton has long been under public scrutiny. There isn't really anything new to discover in the debate format. At best, it's free publicity for both candidates as we approach the election.

That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.

[manker]

You make a grand effort to sincerely communicate your point through a football analogy, manker, but I'm going to call into question the entire underlying tone of this topic.

Debates are not sporting events, so there will never be a tangible win or loss. Debates result in revelations, persuasions, consequences, etc., and establishing a winner undermines the purpose, which is to explore the minds of the debaters or set topics, generally speaking.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is really no point in having Clinton debate Trump. Both of them are well known to the public that would even bother watching it. Trump has been putting out his buffoonery on an almost daily basis since he started his campaign, which is covered extensively by media sources, and Clinton has long been under public scrutiny. There isn't really anything new to discover in the debate format. At best, it's free publicity for both candidates as we approach the election.

That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.Yes, that's exactly it. Tangible wins are impossible, you can't win an election during a debate.
However, politics is all about the perception of the electorate, and therefore about these intangible wins and losses. Eating a sausage sandwich in a certain type of restaurant could be a net 'win' for one politician, and a horrendous loss for another. It is intriguing.

It's inevitable that people will speculate who 'won' when something as high-profile as these televised debates occur.
It would take a particularly snot-nosed observer to look down upon people for doing so.

That said, the point remains that if you opine that your team had the better of events in a situation like I describe above [or, more subjectively, in the context of the recent debate], then you're a fanatical simpleton.

[shaina]

You make a grand effort to sincerely communicate your point through a football analogy, manker, but I'm going to call into question the entire underlying tone of this topic.
Debates are not sporting events, so there will never be a tangible win or loss. Debates result in revelations, persuasions, consequences, etc., and establishing a winner undermines the purpose, which is to explore the minds of the debaters or set topics, generally speaking.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is really no point in having Clinton debate Trump. Both of them are well known to the public that would even bother watching it. Trump has been putting out his buffoonery on an almost daily basis since he started his campaign, which is covered extensively by media sources, and Clinton has long been under public scrutiny. There isn't really anything new to discover in the debate format. At best, it's free publicity for both candidates as we approach the election.
That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.

What i can't understand Macky, and lets forget all the dirty politics on both candidates that one or the other is going to be the next president. We all know all the promises politicians give, and most of the time it is the same shit, and you really hope some of the bigger things they promise do happen, and again that helps...

But really the thing i don't understand, is Trump only has Trump, but watching Clinton and seeing some of her policies have Sanders written all over it, and i really think Sanders will hold her to the important ones to make sure they will be implemented, and behind closed doors Sanders will be put/offered a position on her party wherever he wants.
I watched all the debates and you can see her positions really move towards Sanders (not all of course)..

Trust or no trust, Bernie is out there supporting Clinton, I would assume Sanders supporters watched the debates as well.
What is the problem, i can't figure out?? If you are a Sanders supporter and you have common sense, how can you not support her, when Trump doesn't even look like he has tried to motivate Sanders revolution? (Other than a few comments in the debates from Trump saying Bernie didn't think Clinton wasn't fit to run)...

[shaina]

That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.

Even saying this in a joking manor, We now have a Liberal government here and it is still the same shit different day!! I mean i think Trudeau really won on promising to Legalize Marijuana, and the voter turnout was crazy!, and that is not really close to being implemented.

And the other scary thing in the US, lets see if the Republicans can hold the senate, or did Trump fuck all that up??

[mjmacky]

Even saying this in a joking manor

Incidentally, that's where I pick up half of my one liners

[mjmacky]

You make a grand effort to sincerely communicate your point through a football analogy, manker, but I'm going to call into question the entire underlying tone of this topic.

Debates are not sporting events, so there will never be a tangible win or loss. Debates result in revelations, persuasions, consequences, etc., and establishing a winner undermines the purpose, which is to explore the minds of the debaters or set topics, generally speaking.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is really no point in having Clinton debate Trump. Both of them are well known to the public that would even bother watching it. Trump has been putting out his buffoonery on an almost daily basis since he started his campaign, which is covered extensively by media sources, and Clinton has long been under public scrutiny. There isn't really anything new to discover in the debate format. At best, it's free publicity for both candidates as we approach the election.

That being said, this is a fucking embarrassing election, and I need to start pretending I'm Canadian again.Yes, that's exactly it. Tangible wins are impossible, you can't win an election during a debate.
However, politics is all about the perception of the electorate, and therefore about these intangible wins and losses. Eating a sausage sandwich in a certain type of restaurant could be a net 'win' for one politician, and a horrendous loss for another. It is intriguing.

It's inevitable that people will speculate who 'won' when something as high-profile as these televised debates occur.
It would take a particularly snot-nosed observer to look down upon people for doing so.

That said, the point remains that if you opine that your team had the better of events in a situation like I describe above [or, more subjectively, in the context of the recent debate], then you're a fanatical simpleton.
I'm only snot-nosed when I don't have a booger graveyard nearby. I prefer it to be on my right, and a small bin is ideal.

[manker]

See.
I've got you hyphenating, now.

[shaina]

Even saying this in a joking manor
Incidentally, that's where I pick up half of my one liners

Is that you Idol :unsure:

You know what i was saying :yup: correction manner

Just kidding Idol

Edit:
Just being reported... Philippines is distancing from the US, favoring China and Russia, good job Trump:noes:

[shaina]

I just found this....


Trump has written a lot of books about business – they all seem to end at Chapter 11.Go figure. :lol:

[IdolEyes787]

You make a grand effort to sincerely communicate your point through a football analogy, manker, but I'm going to call into question the entire underlying tone of this topic.

Debates are not sporting events, so there will never be a tangible win or loss. Debates result in revelations, persuasions, consequences, etc., and establishing a winner undermines the purpose, which is to explore the minds of the debaters or set topics, generally speaking.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is really no point in having Clinton debate Trump. Both of them are well known to the public that would even bother watching it. Trump has been putting out his buffoonery on an almost daily basis since he started his campaign, which is covered extensively by media sources, and Clinton has long been under public scrutiny. There isn't really anything new to discover in the debate format. At best, it's free publicity for both candidates as we approach the election.




You only think that way because you're an effete, bourgeoisie, liberal intellectual. Everything is a fight and every day is a test.

See that's the problem with the World, that there aren't more men of action like Superfly, G.I. Joe and the guy from the Commando like when he was played in the movie by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Do you think any of them would lose a debate? No they'd probably hack off their opponents head with a large knife and drink their blood from the skull while quipping something like "Looks like my worthy opponent has decided to concede the point, motherfuckers". Fag.

[IdolEyes787]

Incidentally, that's where I pick up half of my one liners

Is that you Idol :unsure:

You know what i was saying :yup: correction manner

Just kidding Idol

Edit:
Just being reported... Philippines is distancing from the US, favoring China and Russia, good job Trump:noes:

Shouldn't you be in a synagogue or something? Those candelabras don't just light themselves you know.

[shaina]

Shouldn't you be in a synagogue or something? Those candelabras don't just light themselves you know.

I didn't feel like going today (like i ever go really:whistling), but I was thinking of inviting you to my synagogue, but i figure you go to one closer:unsure:

And the women usually light the shabbos candles(funny guy), but i know you already knew googled that.

[IdolEyes787]

And the women usually light the shabbos candles(funny guy), but i know you already knew googled that.

You caught me. You're really getting good at this. I see that in the future I will have to up my game.

PS They light Tony Shalhoub on fire??????? I know he's Lebanese but that still seems a bit harsh.

[shaina]

And the women usually light the shabbos candles(funny guy), but i know you already knew googled that.
You caught me. You're really getting good at this. I see that in the future I will have to up my game.
PS They light Tony Shalhoub on fire??????? I know he's Lebanese but that still seems a bit harsh.


I don't know who set him on fire, that is a tragedy, but I herd he is now a Practicing Born Again Jehovah Witness:idunno:

[megabyteme]

I just found this....


Trump has written a lot of books about business – they all seem to end at Chapter 11.Go figure. :lol:

This got a serious LOL from me. :)

[shaina]

I just found this....
Trump has written a lot of books about business – they all seem to end at Chapter 11.Go figure. :lol:
This got a serious LOL from me. :)

Holy Shit your alive, thank G-D. :clap:

There was a few zingers on CNN and Fox News web sites, really funny stuff.

[Caballero]

There was a few zingers on CNN and Fox News web sites, really funny stuff.

You know your campaign is in trouble when even your own propaganda machine turns on you...

[JPaul]

I'm a big fan of the United Manchester sports team.
I was at the game on Monday when we heroically didn't lose against the racist Liver Pool sports team.

Though much adversity from the overly compensating reverse-biased Altrincham umpire and cheating from the cheating Liver sports team participants, we stoically allowed the game to finish 0-0 despite being the morally and technically superior sports team.

I think we can all learn something from that.

I learned to laugh again, through the tears of a great sorrow granted, but I did learn to laugh again.

[shaina]

There was a few zingers on CNN and Fox News web sites, really funny stuff.
You know your campaign is in trouble when even your own propaganda machine turns on you...

Fox News is in luv with Wikileaks(and the Fraud Peter Schweizer), and they put a lot of validity in them(actually funny to watch), most of them are horseshit. The truth being, i don't really think Trump has any idea how to run a country, let alone deal with Foreign Policies, even if you throw out all of the scandalous shit.
You look at all the Middle East and RT News outlets(Russian interest), they are not happy Trump is loosing, those are the main places i can see, but not all the Anchors at Fox News like Trump, just the ones that wear the Tin Foil Hats, plus i don't think they like any Democrats period..

And what is really funny is only once in all the debates Israel, and it was mentioned once in passing by Trump, but behind closed doors where really all the negotiation are done, i think both parties are on the phone talking:D

You have 17 days left before the US election, could all the polling be wrong and really Trump is winning? Who the heck knows.

It will be interesting Caballero, and if you live in the US, you should do your duty and vote ;)

[mjmacky]

See.
I've got you hyphenating, now.

I've always been hyphenating, but I'm not going to let that dissuade me from giving you grief about it. Also, callbacks.

[mjmacky]

Fox News is in luv with Wikileaks

How will Fox "news" ever be a respected news source if even their opinions are unreliable? There were times when they'd hiss every time Wikileaks came into view.

Answer: They aren't trying to be a legitimate news source. Everyone still working there has to know they peddle misinformation to those ignorant enough to swallow it.

[Skiz]

Well, when they've made up their mind who they're going to vote for, of course they're going to say he won. Then you are one of the fanatical idiots that Idol was talking about.

How about a sports analogy. It involves a tie, mind, so suspend disbelief for a moment.
You're a big fan of red sports team, they're playing blue sports team - their hated rivals.
You're at the match and red sports team don't even leave their own half, the hated blue sports team have 82% of possession, 40 shots at goal, 22 of which are on target. A combination of blind luck and referee ineptitude mean that the game finishes scoreless. There is no tangible winner.

You're on the bus on the way home and an acquaintance of yours, who is a fan of green sports team, looks up from his phone and he sees you wearing your red sports team shirt. He says; '0-0, damn. Who had the better of the game?'

Do you answer red or blue?

Bear in mind that green team sports fan will see the highlights later on TV, lying would just make you look like a fanatical idiot.

How am I one of the fanatical idiots that Idol referred to? I said "they" not "I". I don't believe anyone "won" any of the three Presidential debates. They both deflected questions, missed opportunities to nail down their opponent, and failed to look even moderately appealing.

[mjmacky]

How am I one of the fanatical idiots that Idol referred to?

Let's have a debate about it. I'll serve as the moderator and first proposition speaker.

skiz, it is said that you're a fanatical idiot. If we concede that the only two candidates with a chance to emerge with a victory in the general election are Clinton and Trump, explain why you touch yourself whenever you think about the possibility of Hillary Clinton losing the election.

[manker]

Then you are one of the fanatical idiots that Idol was talking about.

How about a sports analogy. It involves a tie, mind, so suspend disbelief for a moment.
You're a big fan of red sports team, they're playing blue sports team - their hated rivals.
You're at the match and red sports team don't even leave their own half, the hated blue sports team have 82% of possession, 40 shots at goal, 22 of which are on target. A combination of blind luck and referee ineptitude mean that the game finishes scoreless. There is no tangible winner.

You're on the bus on the way home and an acquaintance of yours, who is a fan of green sports team, looks up from his phone and he sees you wearing your red sports team shirt. He says; '0-0, damn. Who had the better of the game?'

Do you answer red or blue?

Bear in mind that green team sports fan will see the highlights later on TV, lying would just make you look like a fanatical idiot.

How am I one of the fanatical idiots that Idol referred to? I said "they" not "I". I don't believe anyone "won" any of the three Presidential debates. They both deflected questions, missed opportunities to nail down their opponent, and failed to look even moderately appealing.I didn't think you were one of the people polled. However, your post empathised with the fanatics, did it not, so I lumped you in with them.
You said that if they've made up their mind who to vote for, of course they'll say he won.

Like as if there is no other possible action these Trump fans could take apart from saying he won the debate when asked.

My post was demonstrating how that is an idiotic position to take.
It seems to have done a good job of this, too, as you seem to be at pains to distance yourself from this behaviour.

Am I to take it, therefore, that there's a chance you are going to vote for Hillary, or were you just talking pish in the first instance.

[manker]

How am I one of the fanatical idiots that Idol referred to?

Let's have a debate about it. I'll serve as the moderator and first proposition speaker.No can do. I've just brought empathy into it and I only taught you what that word means a few years ago.
You're just too inexperienced.

[IdolEyes787]

Let's have a debate about it. I'll serve as the moderator and first proposition speaker.



And the Jeopardy question is "What might a gay intellectual use as a come-on line?"

[manker]

:lol:

[Skiz]

How am I one of the fanatical idiots that Idol referred to? I said "they" not "I". I don't believe anyone "won" any of the three Presidential debates. They both deflected questions, missed opportunities to nail down their opponent, and failed to look even moderately appealing.I didn't think you were one of the people polled. However, your post empathised with the fanatics, did it not, so I lumped you in with them.
You said that if they've made up their mind who to vote for, of course they'll say he won.

Like as if there is no other possible action these Trump fans could take apart from saying he won the debate when asked.

My post was demonstrating how that is an idiotic position to take.
It seems to have done a good job of this, too, as you seem to be at pains to distance yourself from this behaviour.

Am I to take it, therefore, that there's a chance you are going to vote for Hillary, or were you just talking pish in the first instance.

I guess it could have been taken either way, but my comment was more a dig at voter ignorance/apathy/bias. The people who have already made up their minds about which candidate they're voting for are going to see the debate with their own red or blue goggles on and it's going to dictate who they think won the debate. That's all I meant by the "of course" comment.

And no. No chance of voting for Hillary. But no chance of voting for Trump either. I don't vote by R's and D's like unfortunately most people do. Locally, state, and nationally, my candidate is usually the one that receives maybe 5% of the vote. My candidate never wins. I guess I'm weird in that I like less war, less spending, fewer entitlement programs, and more personal freedoms.

[IdolEyes787]

I don't vote by R's and D's like unfortunately most people do. Locally, state, and nationally, my candidate is usually the one that receives maybe 5% of the vote. My candidate never wins. I guess I'm weird in that I like less war, less spending, fewer entitlement programs, and more personal freedoms.

Libertarian like the Koch brothers.

[Skiz]

That's another stupid trend in voting. Worrying about who someone else is voting for. Researching the policies and beliefs of candidates is a pretty easy thing to do. If you're more worried about the letter next to their name then you're a simpleton. Look at policy. Vote for the candidate who you align with.

[manker]

I didn't think you were one of the people polled. However, your post empathised with the fanatics, did it not, so I lumped you in with them.
You said that if they've made up their mind who to vote for, of course they'll say he won.

Like as if there is no other possible action these Trump fans could take apart from saying he won the debate when asked.

My post was demonstrating how that is an idiotic position to take.
It seems to have done a good job of this, too, as you seem to be at pains to distance yourself from this behaviour.

Am I to take it, therefore, that there's a chance you are going to vote for Hillary, or were you just talking pish in the first instance.

I guess it could have been taken either way, but my comment was more a dig at voter ignorance/apathy/bias. The people who have already made up their minds about which candidate they're voting for are going to see the debate with their own red or blue goggles on and it's going to dictate who they think won the debate. That's all I meant by the "of course" comment.

And no. No chance of voting for Hillary. But no chance of voting for Trump either. I don't vote by R's and D's like unfortunately most people do. Locally, state, and nationally, my candidate is usually the one that receives maybe 5% of the vote. My candidate never wins. I guess I'm weird in that I like less war, less spending, fewer entitlement programs, and more personal freedoms.
Ehh, that's fair enough, dude. A sensible outlook, in my opinion.

I can see now what you meant to convey with the 'of course' remark - and to be fair it was probably more my fault for wishing you were a baby-eating Trump supporter.
They're great fun and I wish there were some - or even one - here.

I wonder if j2 will vote for Trump, I bet he'll say he won't but he will :sly:
Big Bank Hank def will.

[mjmacky]

Let's have a debate about it. I'll serve as the moderator and first proposition speaker.



And the Jeopardy question is "What might a gay intellectual use as a come-on line?"
Let's make 180° feel like 69°

[Skiz]

I guess it could have been taken either way, but my comment was more a dig at voter ignorance/apathy/bias. The people who have already made up their minds about which candidate they're voting for are going to see the debate with their own red or blue goggles on and it's going to dictate who they think won the debate. That's all I meant by the "of course" comment.

And no. No chance of voting for Hillary. But no chance of voting for Trump either. I don't vote by R's and D's like unfortunately most people do. Locally, state, and nationally, my candidate is usually the one that receives maybe 5% of the vote. My candidate never wins. I guess I'm weird in that I like less war, less spending, fewer entitlement programs, and more personal freedoms.
Ehh, that's fair enough, dude. A sensible outlook, in my opinion.

I can see now what you meant to convey with the 'of course' remark - and to be fair it was probably more my fault for wishing you were a baby-eating Trump supporter.
They're great fun and I wish there were some - or even one - here.

I wonder if j2 will vote for Trump, I bet he'll say he won't but he will :sly:
Big Bank Hank def will.

Oh yeah. J2 will be voting for Trump. He's an R to the core. For better or worse.

[manker]

I seem to recall j2 saying that The Donald did something inappropriate to a family member of his, maybe a daughter or wife or something.
Surely he can't vote for him, or at least say he's gonna vote for him.

Mind you, he also said that his IQ was 203 and that he doesn't even like how babies taste, so who knows with that guy.
He might be Trump for all we know.

[manker]

Found it because there is literally nothing else to do while I'm here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/samsamsamsam/bigdabses5.gif (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/samsamsamsam/media/bigdabses5.gif.html)



I know things about Trump that disgust me; my sister knows him fairly well, she's worked with him on many occasions ... Her opinion of Trump is that he is, for the most part, beneath contempt.

[JPaul]

Intelligence Interval

40 - 54 Severely challenged (Less than 1% of test takers)
55 - 69 Challenged (2.3% of test takers)
70 - 84 Below average
85 - 114 Average (68% of test takers)
115 - 129 Above average
130 - 144 Gifted (2.3% of test takers)
145 - 159 Genius (Less than 1% of test takers)
160 - 175 Extraordinary genius

[manker]

He was rodding us, you think.
That old bugger.

[JPaul]

It must be an interesting dichotomy for him.

He is a total Republican , but considers Trump to be beneath contempt.

I suppose That's where the merkin system will help him. He could look for a Republican controlled Congress but not support Trump in his attempt to become POTUS.

[manker]

Preferring a Democrat as the figurehead? Nah. It's all about the team colours.
Like when I watched Joe Allen in the summer and hung on every beguiling twist of his elfish frame, but as soon as le tournoi was over, I went back to hating the fuck out of the midget faced chicken headed twat.

It's okay now though, he's gone to Stoke.

[JPaul]

More like a team and manager if you're looking for an analogy I wood have thunk.

You still support Manewe because it's the team you follow, even though your current manager is a total cunt.

He would still be a Republican even if he didn't like the manager.

[nagasaki]

:geek:

Donald J. Trump’s use of the phrase “big league” has divided social media into two camps: Those who believe he said “bigly,” and those who heard “big league.”

[manker]

More like a team and manager if you're looking for an analogy I wood have thunk.

You still support Manewe because it's the team you follow, even though your current manager is a total cunt.

He would still be a Republican even if he didn't like the manager.Ah quite so. Looks like it's just as I always suspected.
Puntsphere philosophy; a boot for every foot.

[manker]

:geek:

Donald J. Trump’s use of the phrase “big league” has divided social media into two camps: Those who believe he said “bigly,” and those who heard “big league.”
I'm all for new words and I'd already heard of both 'big' and 'league'.

I'm bigly in the bigly camp.
Big league.

[JPaul]

Is it possible for me to be in one of these social media camps, not having heard what he said.

If so I very much go for the "Bigly" camp, simply because I likey.

[dion09529]

https://twitter.com/RyanFelton13/status/796079003278909442/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw