On 2/1/14, 5:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 5:28 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 4:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 4:44 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/1/2014 3:03 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 11:48 AM, Hank wrote:
On 2/1/2014 10:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Oh nooo...Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!


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

Probably won't see Billery uttering that chant.


She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full
responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



It's a non-issue except to those who wouldn't vote for any Democratic
Party candidate. The righties are trying to make a bigger issue
out of
this for Hillary than they did when Dumfoch Dubya presided over 9/11.


Name a serious Republican candidate who you would actually vote for
in 2016.

Who are the serious GOP candidates ?


You know what I meant. You are a straight Democratic voter, regardless
of who is running, so it's a non-issue to you.



I've seen nothing to indicate that the GOP nominating apparatus won't be
in the hands of people who would nominate a Cruz, a Paul, a Rubio, a
Ryan. or even worse, all right-wingers, and some of whom are or border
on insanity. When Christie was considered a GOP front-runner by many,
the teabaggers and other ultra-cons started trashing him. It's not
likely a moderate will capture the GOP nomination.

No, I'm not going to vote for any Republicans like those. If Mrs.
Clinton runs, I will be happy as a clam to vote for her.


So that is already determined in your mind even without knowing who the
other candidates may be. I really can't consider that being an educated
voter or having been subject to any "critical thinking".




I mentioned Cruz, Ryan, Paul, and Rubio, all of whom I think are
unsuitable for various reasons. Perhaps the GOP will nominate someone
who isn't insane or unsuitable. I don't know who he or she might be.

There's plenty of time. I simply don't see the GOP nominating an
appropriately moderate candidate. If you think there's a chance, who do
you have in mind who has indicated a strong interest and willingness to
run?



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

On 2/1/2014 6:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 5:28 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 4:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 4:44 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/1/2014 3:03 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 11:48 AM, Hank wrote:
On 2/1/2014 10:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Oh nooo...Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!


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

Probably won't see Billery uttering that chant.


She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full
responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



It's a non-issue except to those who wouldn't vote for any
Democratic
Party candidate. The righties are trying to make a bigger issue
out of
this for Hillary than they did when Dumfoch Dubya presided over
9/11.


Name a serious Republican candidate who you would actually vote for
in 2016.

Who are the serious GOP candidates ?


You know what I meant. You are a straight Democratic voter, regardless
of who is running, so it's a non-issue to you.



I've seen nothing to indicate that the GOP nominating apparatus won't be
in the hands of people who would nominate a Cruz, a Paul, a Rubio, a
Ryan. or even worse, all right-wingers, and some of whom are or border
on insanity. When Christie was considered a GOP front-runner by many,
the teabaggers and other ultra-cons started trashing him. It's not
likely a moderate will capture the GOP nomination.

No, I'm not going to vote for any Republicans like those. If Mrs.
Clinton runs, I will be happy as a clam to vote for her.


So that is already determined in your mind even without knowing who the
other candidates may be. I really can't consider that being an educated
voter or having been subject to any "critical thinking".




I mentioned Cruz, Ryan, Paul, and Rubio, all of whom I think are
unsuitable for various reasons. Perhaps the GOP will nominate someone
who isn't insane or unsuitable. I don't know who he or she might be.

There's plenty of time. I simply don't see the GOP nominating an
appropriately moderate candidate. If you think there's a chance, who do
you have in mind who has indicated a strong interest and willingness to
run?





I am waiting. :-)

On 2/1/2014 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 5:28 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 4:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 4:44 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/1/2014 3:03 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 11:48 AM, Hank wrote:
On 2/1/2014 10:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Oh nooo...Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!


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

Probably won't see Billery uttering that chant.


She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full
responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



It's a non-issue except to those who wouldn't vote for any
Democratic
Party candidate. The righties are trying to make a bigger issue
out of
this for Hillary than they did when Dumfoch Dubya presided over
9/11.


Name a serious Republican candidate who you would actually vote for
in 2016.

Who are the serious GOP candidates ?


You know what I meant. You are a straight Democratic voter,
regardless
of who is running, so it's a non-issue to you.



I've seen nothing to indicate that the GOP nominating apparatus
won't be
in the hands of people who would nominate a Cruz, a Paul, a Rubio, a
Ryan. or even worse, all right-wingers, and some of whom are or border
on insanity. When Christie was considered a GOP front-runner by many,
the teabaggers and other ultra-cons started trashing him. It's not
likely a moderate will capture the GOP nomination.

No, I'm not going to vote for any Republicans like those. If Mrs.
Clinton runs, I will be happy as a clam to vote for her.


So that is already determined in your mind even without knowing who the
other candidates may be. I really can't consider that being an educated
voter or having been subject to any "critical thinking".




I mentioned Cruz, Ryan, Paul, and Rubio, all of whom I think are
unsuitable for various reasons. Perhaps the GOP will nominate someone
who isn't insane or unsuitable. I don't know who he or she might be.

There's plenty of time. I simply don't see the GOP nominating an
appropriately moderate candidate. If you think there's a chance, who do
you have in mind who has indicated a strong interest and willingness to
run?





I am waiting. :-)


He's thinking.

On 2/1/14, 6:19 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 5:28 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 4:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 4:44 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/1/2014 3:03 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 11:48 AM, Hank wrote:
On 2/1/2014 10:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Oh nooo...Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!


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

Probably won't see Billery uttering that chant.


She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full
responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



It's a non-issue except to those who wouldn't vote for any
Democratic
Party candidate. The righties are trying to make a bigger issue
out of
this for Hillary than they did when Dumfoch Dubya presided over
9/11.


Name a serious Republican candidate who you would actually vote for
in 2016.

Who are the serious GOP candidates ?


You know what I meant. You are a straight Democratic voter,
regardless
of who is running, so it's a non-issue to you.



I've seen nothing to indicate that the GOP nominating apparatus
won't be
in the hands of people who would nominate a Cruz, a Paul, a Rubio, a
Ryan. or even worse, all right-wingers, and some of whom are or border
on insanity. When Christie was considered a GOP front-runner by many,
the teabaggers and other ultra-cons started trashing him. It's not
likely a moderate will capture the GOP nomination.

No, I'm not going to vote for any Republicans like those. If Mrs.
Clinton runs, I will be happy as a clam to vote for her.


So that is already determined in your mind even without knowing who the
other candidates may be. I really can't consider that being an educated
voter or having been subject to any "critical thinking".




I mentioned Cruz, Ryan, Paul, and Rubio, all of whom I think are
unsuitable for various reasons. Perhaps the GOP will nominate someone
who isn't insane or unsuitable. I don't know who he or she might be.

There's plenty of time. I simply don't see the GOP nominating an
appropriately moderate candidate. If you think there's a chance, who do
you have in mind who has indicated a strong interest and willingness to
run?





I am waiting. :-)




You mean, like Vladimir and Estragon, waiting for Godot? Godot never
shows up.

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

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:56:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

No, I'm not going to vote for any Republicans like those. If Mrs.
Clinton runs, I will be happy as a clam to vote for her.


So that is already determined in your mind even without knowing who the
other candidates may be. I really can't consider that being an educated
voter or having been subject to any "critical thinking".

===

Heh. Game, set, match.

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:19:29 -0500, Hank wrote:

She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



Oh good. Now she has a clean slate. ;-)

===

And that depends on what the meaning of is, is.

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:04:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Isn't too bad we don't have a single-payer system

===

Oh yes, I just can't wait for the government to be responsible for all
of my health care decisions.

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:16:55 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Perhaps if profits were higher for businesses...oh, wait, they are at
record levels.

Perhaps if executive pay were higher...oh, wait, it is at record levels.

Perhaps if a social contract existed between workers and their
empployers...oh, wait, we gave up on that.

Perhaps if there were less greed on the part of the haves...oh, wait,
where would we be without the 1%.

Perhaps if we made the day longer, working parents could would three
shifts a day to make ends meet...oh, wait, in some families the parents
are working three or four shifts between them.

Perhaps if we got rid of child labor laws, the kids could quit school
and go to work.

Perhaps if we got rid of environmental regulations, we could re-attract
some of those dirty industries that went to China and we could provide
more menial jobs mopping floors at the cancer hospitals for the rich
folks who could afford private health care insurance.

===

Perhaps if we could get everyone to pay their taxes and not hide their
assets from the government. Oh I forgot, that's just for the
"little" people, right Harry?

On 2/2/14, 10:33 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 02:07:35 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:19:29 -0500, Hank wrote:

She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



Oh good. Now she has a clean slate. ;-)

===

And that depends on what the meaning of is, is.

I bet all of that White Water/Rose Law firm stuff comes up again. In
1992 it was written off as being Hillary's deal that Bill said he had
no part in.
We might even hear about Hillary's contribution to Walmart moving from
a "buy American" company to the China outlet mall they became while
she was sitting on their board.

I still think it will be health and age that keeps her from running.



Hillary's former law firm, et cetera, will only be an issue for those
voters who wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. Using that
crap is just appealing to the base. *If* she decides to run, she will
clean the clock of any of the sane Republicans with wide appeal who so
far have expressed even a semi-serious interest. For the moment, though,
I can't think of the names of those "sane" Republicans. Who are they?

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

On 2/2/2014 2:07 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:19:29 -0500, Hank wrote:

She has already made the media rounds, describing Benghazi as her
biggest disappointment as Sec. of State and accepting full responsibility.

She's getting that issue taken care of and out of the way early.



Oh good. Now she has a clean slate. ;-)

===

And that depends on what the meaning of is, is.

Right out of the "Famous quotes from ankle pants"