On 11/6/13, 8:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2013 7:39 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 11/6/13, 7:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


I got the impression that the Virginia governer's race was considered by
many to be something of a "bell weather" for the elections in 2014 and
2016. Cuccinelli being rejected in Virginia might signal a general
rejection of ultra-right wingers including the Tea Party. That may be
so, but apparently the contest was much closer than many Democrats
predicted or were hoping for.

I still think there should be some limits on how much money the national
DNC or RNC can finance state level election candidates. Uncontrolled, I
can see the possibility of some serious manipulations that include
national level elections.


I don't see much connection between last night's results in Virginia and
the 2014 or 2016 elections. The Alabama race, though, was interesting in
that Bradley Byrne, a lawyer and former state senator, beat a really
nutso teabagger and won the right to be the GOP candidate for a House
special election. It's good for America when teabaggers get their hats
handed to them...they have no interest in government, progress, or
womens' rights.


Perhaps you don't see any connection between the Virginia contest and
future elections but virtually all the "progressive" media did. It's
all people like Rachael Maddow, O'Donnell, etc., crowed about.




Be that as it may, to me the Virginia race had some funny moments. My
favorite was when Cuccinelli brought in Ron Paul to stump for him, and
Paul pushed the idea of "nullification" of any federal laws individual
states don't like.

Great idea to push in the state that was the home of the Confederacy.

I'm still trying to decide which political family is crazier...Ron and
Randy Paul or Ted Cruz and Daddy Cruz.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/6/2013 10:28 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/6/13, 10:00 AM, Charlemagne wrote:


OK, no "proved" voter fraud but definately, easy to prove voter
supression which is just as effective... Remember, 254 of 500
conservative groups that were stopped in their tracks leading up the the
2012 election were *in Ohio*, mostly voter registration and especially
groups that would bring folks to the polls...










I'm sure your "proof" of the suppression of conservative voters in Ohio
as you allege here is of the same quality as your claims of voter fraud
in Pennsylvania. In other words, pure, unadulterated bull****.

Not to worry. You're a bigger bull****ter than Scott ever was.

On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 20:08:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 8:48:07 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/5/13, 9:44 PM, Tim wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 8:39:54 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:

MSNBC and FOX project McCauliffe the winner of the Virginia



gubernatorial race.



Oh, no doubt that he probably will win but the margin will be really slim.

Sure is. Most prognosticators were calling a 5-6 point margin. Looks

like the margin might only be 2 points or so. Cuccinelli was a real

horror story but obviously appealing to large numbers of Virginians.



If he'd be that big of a horror story I'd think he'd lose by a cliff drop.

Cuccinelli was a horror story. McCauliffe is a scarier horror story.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On 11/6/2013 2:45 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Sure. Ok. Right. I'm going to spend time looking for 10-year-old source
material. I told you...I remember the reports. I didn't copy them down.
Maybe your 7th grade buddy in Florida can provide a few insults to move
the process along.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

I tell the truth. If you want to call it insults, I really don't give a
damn. ;-)

On 11/6/2013 12:06 PM, Hank© wrote:

On 11/6/2013 9:41 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 11/6/13, 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Rockefeller's informal summary of the Committee's findings was a strong
endorsement of the liberal "Bush lied us into war" mantra. Only
problem is, the details of his own report do not back up his assertion,
nor the narrative liberals have adopted. The report contends that
every claim and statement made by administration officials, including GW
Bush during the buildup to the war was "substantiated" by available
intelligence reports at the time.







Except that the intel was "cooked..."


ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY. You're worse than Scotty.

Classic case of repeating something often enough to the point where
people actually believe it. They usually can't prove it and often
can't remember where they first heard it. But, if it fits their agenda,
why not go for it?

On 11/6/13, 2:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2013 12:06 PM, Hank© wrote:

On 11/6/2013 9:41 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 11/6/13, 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Rockefeller's informal summary of the Committee's findings was a strong
endorsement of the liberal "Bush lied us into war" mantra. Only
problem is, the details of his own report do not back up his assertion,
nor the narrative liberals have adopted. The report contends that
every claim and statement made by administration officials,
including GW
Bush during the buildup to the war was "substantiated" by available
intelligence reports at the time.







Except that the intel was "cooked..."


ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY. You're worse than Scotty.

Classic case of repeating something often enough to the point where
people actually believe it. They usually can't prove it and often
can't remember where they first heard it. But, if it fits their agenda,
why not go for it?




It was what, a decade ago? Why would I remember precisely where I heard
or saw reports that Bush et al cooked the intel?

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/6/2013 2:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/6/13, 2:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2013 12:06 PM, Hank© wrote:

On 11/6/2013 9:41 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 11/6/13, 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Rockefeller's informal summary of the Committee's findings was a
strong
endorsement of the liberal "Bush lied us into war" mantra. Only
problem is, the details of his own report do not back up his
assertion,
nor the narrative liberals have adopted. The report contends that
every claim and statement made by administration officials,
including GW
Bush during the buildup to the war was "substantiated" by available
intelligence reports at the time.







Except that the intel was "cooked..."


ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY. You're worse than Scotty.

Classic case of repeating something often enough to the point where
people actually believe it. They usually can't prove it and often
can't remember where they first heard it. But, if it fits their agenda,
why not go for it?




It was what, a decade ago? Why would I remember precisely where I heard
or saw reports that Bush et al cooked the intel?


Because as someone who constantly accuses Bush of "Lying", you should
be able to remember why you believe that.

You just joined the bandwagon.

On 11/6/13, 3:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2013 2:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/6/13, 2:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2013 12:06 PM, Hank© wrote:

On 11/6/2013 9:41 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 11/6/13, 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Rockefeller's informal summary of the Committee's findings was a
strong
endorsement of the liberal "Bush lied us into war" mantra. Only
problem is, the details of his own report do not back up his
assertion,
nor the narrative liberals have adopted. The report contends that
every claim and statement made by administration officials,
including GW
Bush during the buildup to the war was "substantiated" by available
intelligence reports at the time.







Except that the intel was "cooked..."


ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY. You're worse than Scotty.

Classic case of repeating something often enough to the point where
people actually believe it. They usually can't prove it and often
can't remember where they first heard it. But, if it fits their agenda,
why not go for it?




It was what, a decade ago? Why would I remember precisely where I heard
or saw reports that Bush et al cooked the intel?


Because as someone who constantly accuses Bush of "Lying", you should
be able to remember why you believe that.

You just joined the bandwagon.



Yeah, sure. Whatever.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

In article ,
says...

On 11/6/2013 2:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/6/13, 2:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2013 12:06 PM, Hank© wrote:

On 11/6/2013 9:41 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 11/6/13, 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Rockefeller's informal summary of the Committee's findings was a
strong
endorsement of the liberal "Bush lied us into war" mantra. Only
problem is, the details of his own report do not back up his
assertion,
nor the narrative liberals have adopted. The report contends that
every claim and statement made by administration officials,
including GW
Bush during the buildup to the war was "substantiated" by available
intelligence reports at the time.







Except that the intel was "cooked..."


ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY. You're worse than Scotty.

Classic case of repeating something often enough to the point where
people actually believe it. They usually can't prove it and often
can't remember where they first heard it. But, if it fits their agenda,
why not go for it?




It was what, a decade ago? Why would I remember precisely where I heard
or saw reports that Bush et al cooked the intel?


Because as someone who constantly accuses Bush of "Lying", you should
be able to remember why you believe that.

You just joined the bandwagon.

I can tell you why *I* accuse Bush of lying!

On 11/6/2013 3:27 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Bush lied us into war. Your attempts to resuscitate his reputation are
humorous.



Glad you find some humor in my attempts. This will never go anywhere,
so we'll just have to agree to disagree ... probably forever.

I just dislike seeing anyone's reputation or best efforts destroyed
simply for political purposes. I think that's about the worst thing a
person can do to another.

If nothing else, you'd have to agree that in his "retirement", GW Bush
has conducted himself with dignity and has shown respect for the trials
and tribulations of the current president.