Why Don't They Lay Off
 

On 2/1/14, 4:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 4:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 13:58:58 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:15:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:21:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What's your point, that the problems Christie has created for himself
shouldn't be reported to the public?


I find it interesting that Democrats always redefine what is OK when a
Republican does it.
What Christie was supposed to do is trivial compared to Chicago
politics on a good day. What Nixon did was trivial compared to LBJ and
the list goes on.



Uh-huh.

Which part was wrong?

I do find it interesting that the Democrats anointed Christie as the
presumptive candidate, just so they could knock him down.
Smart money would have said he would not survive the primaries anyway.
That "Tony Soprano" thing is not going to play in Texas, Florida or
the fly over country that comprises most of the red states.
By a like token they don't really give a **** if some bridge in New
York was slow a few days. I bet most people there didn't even notice.
They just racked up to the same traffic they see a couple hundred
other days a year.

If you'd spend just a little time on your English grammar, you'd
realize that 'Uh-huh' is a response
denoting agreement.


Getting a little nit-picky here. It's also a form of sarcasm, like ya,
sure.



Now you've done it...you've let a little secret out of its bag. :)

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:12:02 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:21:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:





What's your point, that the problems Christie has created for himself

shouldn't be reported to the public?





I find it interesting that Democrats always redefine what is OK when a

Republican does it.

What Christie was supposed to do is trivial compared to Chicago

politics on a good day. What Nixon did was trivial compared to LBJ and

the list goes on.

woohoo! You got that right, especially when you mention the Cook Co. 'machine'

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:58:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2014 4:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 13:58:58 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:15:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:21:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What's your point, that the problems Christie has created for himself
shouldn't be reported to the public?


I find it interesting that Democrats always redefine what is OK when a
Republican does it.
What Christie was supposed to do is trivial compared to Chicago
politics on a good day. What Nixon did was trivial compared to LBJ and
the list goes on.



Uh-huh.

Which part was wrong?

I do find it interesting that the Democrats anointed Christie as the
presumptive candidate, just so they could knock him down.
Smart money would have said he would not survive the primaries anyway.
That "Tony Soprano" thing is not going to play in Texas, Florida or
the fly over country that comprises most of the red states.
By a like token they don't really give a **** if some bridge in New
York was slow a few days. I bet most people there didn't even notice.
They just racked up to the same traffic they see a couple hundred
other days a year.

If you'd spend just a little time on your English grammar, you'd realize that 'Uh-huh' is a response
denoting agreement.


Getting a little nit-picky here. It's also a form of sarcasm, like ya,
sure.


Uh-huh!

Believe it or not, I actually knew that. But I didn't think H would act that way.