Anyone But Hillary 2008 Campaign Posters
As a man, I like to start things off right and in a hurry. That means three things:
1. Make things manlier — which I’ve done by challenging you all to my 2008 Man Challenge. I’ve already completed four out of five. Better dust your balls off and get to work.
2. Watch out for any bullshit on the horizon.
3. Take it easy.
God didn’t create the universe in six days and then take it easy on the seventh. He did it in two and then took a permanent vacation. Mondays He left for men to get to work and start building civilization. Monday is the manliest day there is. That’s why women hate them.
The following are promotional posters I created to keep an eye on the biggest storm of bullshit on the horizon since the ending scene of Terminator: Hillary Clinton running for president.
Related Articles:
January 4th, 2008 at 11:15 am - IP Man-Hash: 91a84da2b048e
So I heard Barack won the primaries. This made me happy, and I went drinking with my fellow men at a Hooters in celebration [well we were gonna go anyway, this just adds to the fun]. So saying no to Hitlery [I liked that one] is the way to go. Fuck yeah!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7b2d081a727d6
That is not the ending scene of Terminator II. the ending scene is Arnold diving himself into molten steel to destroy the chip inside his head.
P Coderch
January 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: c4d026b819ad4
The ending scene of Terminator 2 is Sarah Connor driving into the mountains in a Jeep where there is a huge fucking storm brewing. We are lead to believe that there is real trouble on the horizon.
-Dick
January 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: adb99796489a1
Not only is she a woman, which the most unstable thing in this world. Matter and anti-matter get along better than women and…. even other women!
But, she can’t even satisfy and keep one man. How the hell is she going to keep a whole country satisfied?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3bdbb85f8b2b6
Okay. Well, then, I would like to insinuate that a Hillary presidency would not be unlike a playground consumed by a nuclear holocaust.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:33 pm - IP Man-Hash: 43d7ca226add8
Fuck Fish Slap!
January 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: cde4d6da17a7a
is that for me?
fuck fish?
i like it.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7b2d081a727d6
No, that’s the ending scene of Terminator I…
P Coderch
January 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: c4d026b819ad4
Of course you’re right.
-Dick
January 5th, 2008 at 9:57 am - IP Man-Hash: 42564df2b177d
“She would sell out her country’s lifestyle to further her political gain as I am sure she is smart enough to realize basic economics such as taking from achievers and giving to nonachievers only results in downfall of the entire state.”
Absolutely, could not agree with you more. I ask you, however, to please refrain from talking about economic policy unless you know its finer points. There is no excuse for spreading political minutia no matter how much you believe it to be true. The fact is, both parties have failed us.
Whether “it” be republican or democrat, there is one overwhelming reality that history of the has proven over and over again. Politicians are always willing to whore themselves out to the highest bidder. Taking them at face value is like spending a drunken night with Billy Bob’s sister. The night before it may seem fun; the next morning when you realize you forgot to make her wear a bag, not so fun. Added to a hangover; need I go farther?
The point is, my good fellow whether it talks out of the left ass cheek or the right ass cheek, it is still talking out of its ass. The system is falling to pieces, and both parties have played their fair share in it. Trickle down economics is a political platform, it has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Much as The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 has nothing to do with protecting the environment, both policies are too short sighted and simplistic to ever see the problem in its entirety.
Socialism in its purity can never work, that has been proven over and over again throughout history. On this, you score a very good point. Laissez Fair did not work either. Trickle down economics is Laissez Fair economics. Both system are systems by which the few subjugate the many. Does it matter whether that subjugation is achieved through the dominance of private corporations or the government? The answer is most definitely no.
Subjugation is hardly an American ideology my friend. Our forefathers founded our nation on the principle of the right of the individual to be free from the tyranny of both the minority and the majority. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence).
Need I continue? Blindly following any political platform with out question is highly illogical and irrational. One of the greatest virtues of man is our ability to stop and smell the bullshit.
Both democrats and republicans are full of it.
Respectfully yours
BigBen
January 5th, 2008 at 11:09 am - IP Man-Hash: 42564df2b177d
Absolutely, could not agree with you more. I ask you, however, to please refrain from talking about economic policy unless you know its finer points. There is no excuse for spreading political minutia no matter how much you believe it to be true. The fact is, both parties have failed us.
Whether “it” be republican or democrat, there is one overwhelming reality that history of the has proven over and over again. Politicians are always willing to whore themselves out to the highest bidder. Taking them at face value is like spending a drunken night with Billy Bob’s sister. The night before it may seem fun; the next morning when you realize you forgot to make her wear a bag, not so fun. Added to a hangover; need I go farther?
The point is, my good fellow whether it talks out of the left ass cheek or the right ass cheek, it is still talking out of its ass. The system is falling to pieces, and both parties have played their fair share in it. Trickle down economics is a political platform, it has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Much as The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 has nothing to do with protecting the environment, both policies are too short sighted and simplistic to ever see the problem in its entirety.
Socialism in its purity can never work, that has been proven over and over again throughout history. On this, you score a very good point. Laissez Fair did not work either. Trickle down economics is Laissez Fair economics. Both system are systems by which the few subjugate the many. Does it matter whether that subjugation is achieved through the dominance of private corporations or the government? The answer is most definitely no.
Subjugation is hardly an American ideology my friend. Our forefathers founded our nation on the principle of the right of the individual to be free from the tyranny of both the minority and the majority. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence).
Need I continue? Blindly following any political platform with out question is highly illogical and irrational. One of the greatest virtues of man is our ability to stop and smell the bullshit.
Both democrats and republicans are full of it.
Respectfully yours
BigBen
January 5th, 2008 at 11:59 am - IP Man-Hash: 2490e8775b914
Trust me, I am not proud to be from New York due to this, nor did I vote for her.
I fully support these hilarious ads and will always vote a man over a woman. No matter what.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: 55548152be297
Lady XX has actually managed to impress me.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: f74c6e3022877
All of the men that have commented on this post are obviously neither interested in politics, nor the well-being of the United States. Policy should be the decision-maker in a Presidential race, with complete disregard for gender. Are you honestly trying to argue that if there were piles of dust running against her, that you’d vote for the debris? If any of you were actually patriotic and thoughtful, you’d pay no attention to the sex of the candidate.
I have proven my point.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: 55548152be297
I, ‘Hillary Supporter’, am a Marine and patriotic to boot. While her policies may strike interest into the minds of some due to her husband schooling her in the field of politics, one comment that was made destroys your entire argument. ‘If a woman cannot even please her Man, how should voters expect her to please an entire country?’ I rest my case. Besides, one menopausal fit of rage and we’ll have World War 3 on our hands. I certainly don’t want that woman being my Commander in Chief. Chesty would spin in his grave if it were to happen, which of course will never happen because too many people hate her. I have more respect for persons that can lead America’s troops in the right direction and have good foreign policy. You tube has a wonderful video of Hillary visiting the troops in Iraq and talking about her assistant’s hair rather than addressing the issues that were blatantly in front of her. This tells me her assistant’s hairdo is an issue she would rather discuss rather than my Marine Corps brothers dying of IED explosions and a country in turmoil.
Seriously, fuck of Dick’s site.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:19 pm - IP Man-Hash: 42564df2b177d
Not really; the fact that you seem to single out the “alleged” men on this site, just proves you do not believe what you are saying. You jumped to conclusions based upon nothing more than a whim and then proceeded to single out those you assumed were male. In fact, by doing this you have proven Dick’s point; men are better than women.
Sincerest regards,
BigBen
January 5th, 2008 at 11:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7cd5e0b902f7c
@ Hillary Supporter: Who the fuck cares? Women shouldn’t be involved in politics.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:43 am - IP Man-Hash: 963798bb4c10b
While I wish it weren’t so, the sex of the candidate does play a major role. No matter how qualified a woman is to be president, some areas of the world are unable to take female leaders seriously. Particularly because of the United States’ involvement with the Middle East, plenty of people (women included) are probably very hesitant to support Hillary Clinton in this election. Until sexism has waned a bit more, a male president may be best.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:23 am - IP Man-Hash: eeb32e3dc6874
Let me clear this up for you. When women live in the real world like men, then maybe a chick could be considered. Not seriously of course.
The one person in charge of the entire US military should never be a woman. That is unless women are eligible for the draft to.
While your at it throw in start paying alimony and being sentenced like men for the crimes you commit.
An entire gender can’t expect to get special treatment for everything. Then turn around and actually expect to lead the fucking country.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:41 am - IP Man-Hash: d9438fe1c6108
@Sgt. Reyes - Since I’m not a marine, I won’t say Hoo-rah; I will say Amen.
Accusing others of a lack of patriotism probably really is the last refuge of a scoundrel. What makes you think the men of this site haven’t carefully considered her policies, and then shuddered in horror and had to go take a shower?
I’m fine with a female leader. There just aren’t many, because men are better than women.
If the Republicans nominated a pile of dust against Hillary, yes, I would definitely vote Republican, as long as the dust qualified under the constitution to take office, and they ran another pile of dust as the V-P candidate. (Otherwise the 25th amendment might cause problems).
If the other Democrats were piles of debris, I’d strategically vote for Hillary in the primaries so the Mommy Party would nominate her and lose to the Man Party running its pile of dust.
Given that the dust would be unable to sign any bill coming out of Congress, we’d need roughly two-thirds majorities to pass any new laws. That sounds like a libertarian’s (or man’s) dream.
That said, it’s possible that the Republicans could nominate something much worse than a pile of dust, like, say, Mike Huckabee. (Apologies to any of his supporters, but I’m not a fan. You can find out why on my blog).
No, we’d look first at the candidate’s background — which includes gender — and achievements, and then at his or her proposals.
A slobbering crack addict who had a lengthy felony career but said all the things you wanted to hear would not be a suitable candidate. Background matters. Similarly, looking at Hillary’s background, which of course includes gender, indicates that she is not a suitable candidate… at least not vs. a pile of dust.
No, you’ve argued in circles, proven yourself to be a scoundreless who impugns others’ patriotism, and shown yourself not to have a clue about how politics works.
You’ve also helped demonstrate that Hillary is inferior to a pile of dust as a presidential candidate.
You’re a living example of why the 19th Amendment was almost as bad an idea as the 18th.
Thanks for playing.
-wolfe