Current Mood ...
 

.... of the country expressed with Gimp2


http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Bailing.jpg

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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.

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

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/1/2014 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.



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

Current Mood ...
 

"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 ?

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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.

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

Current Mood ...
 

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".

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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. :-)

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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?

Current Mood ...
 

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.

Current Mood ...
 

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"

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/2/14, 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:51:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 10:33 AM, wrote:

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?

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

I do tend to agree, there are not really any attractive candidates ...
from either side. It is probably why I have not voted for a major
party candidate since 1988 and I was wrong then.


It's been a long time since Jeb has run for office, and he has *that*
last name. I don't have a problem with Hillary as POTUS if she decides
to run. I don't think Biden is really interested. I don't know who else
might consider it on the Dem side. There was talk of Elizabeth Warren
but she says she isn't interested. Martin O'Malley? John Tester?



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

Current Mood ...
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.
I think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.

Current Mood ...
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:27:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.
I think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.


===

Yes, and we also have conventional media outlets who make no secret of
their political bias.

So how do we fix it?

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/2/14, 4:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns. I
think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.





Can't even get a half dozen posters to behave decently *here* . You have
expectations for the country at large?

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

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/2/2014 5:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:27:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.
I think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.


===

Yes, and we also have conventional media outlets who make no secret of
their political bias.

So how do we fix it?


Herculean task but the demand for change has to come from the people.
Refusal to support candidates that engage in over the top smear
campaigns, boycotting the viewing of politically biased news and making
the objections known.

Never happen.

Current Mood ...
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:10:53 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 4:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns. I
think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.





Can't even get a half dozen posters to behave decently *here* . You have
expectations for the country at large?

===

Define exactly what you mean by behaving decently. Would you like us
to overlook or ignore every outrageous statement that you make? Would
you like us to overlook or ignore every instance of your past
outrageous behavior? This is like a small town. If you wear out
your welcome it will never be forgotten.

Current Mood ...
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:40:55 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:10:53 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 4:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns. I
think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.





Can't even get a half dozen posters to behave decently *here* . You have
expectations for the country at large?

===

Define exactly what you mean by behaving decently. Would you like us
to overlook or ignore every outrageous statement that you make? Would
you like us to overlook or ignore every instance of your past
outrageous behavior? This is like a small town. If you wear out
your welcome it will never be forgotten.

I think he would like all of us to become like YKW, agree with everything he says and follow around
like a pup.

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/2/14, 7:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:40:55 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:10:53 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 4:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns. I
think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.





Can't even get a half dozen posters to behave decently *here* . You have
expectations for the country at large?

===

Define exactly what you mean by behaving decently. Would you like us
to overlook or ignore every outrageous statement that you make? Would
you like us to overlook or ignore every instance of your past
outrageous behavior? This is like a small town. If you wear out
your welcome it will never be forgotten.

I think he would like all of us to become like YKW, agree with everything he says and follow around
like a pup.



That reads like a perfect descriptor of the overzealous righties here
who want everyone to believe as they do on politics and follow their
doctrine like a pup and when they don't, why they'd better watch out.
I'm thankful the overzealous righties here and I disagree on just about
everything political. I'm also thankful all the righties here aren't
overzealous...just most of them.
--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

Current Mood ...
 

wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:37:27 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:51:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

I do tend to agree, there are not really any attractive candidates ...
from either side. It is probably why I have not voted for a major
party candidate since 1988 and I was wrong then.


It's been a long time since Jeb has run for office, and he has *that*
last name. I don't have a problem with Hillary as POTUS if she decides
to run. I don't think Biden is really interested. I don't know who else
might consider it on the Dem side. There was talk of Elizabeth Warren
but she says she isn't interested. Martin O'Malley? John Tester?

The bottom of the barrel comes up pretty fast doesn't it?

The GOP wannabes are under the barrel!

Current Mood ...
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 20:29:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I'm thankful the overzealous righties here and I disagree on just about
everything political.

===

Among your many other issues, you are seeing overzealous righties
behind every tree. Boo.

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/2/14, 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:27:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.
I think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.




I don't think politics has been civil since they took Nixon down.
That was when the press took a "no holds barred" attitude and they
could make any kind of personal attack that they wanted to.
Bringing down a politician was just putting a scalp on your belt.
A rite of passage if you want to be taken seriously as a reporter

Imagine trying to elect FDR, Eisenhower or even JFK in this climate?

Bill Maher is talking about "flipping" a congressional district, just
for the **** of it. Considering he can bring the equivalent of a
couple million dollars worth of free advertising into the contest, he
could get Bieber elected in most districts.


My understanding is that he is going to do it openly and above board and
will publicly involve his audience. That puts him a few rungs higher on
the ladder than, say, the Koch Brothers pondscum. I hope Maher picks
someone good...say, some brain-damaged tea party type.

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

Current Mood ...
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 20:29:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 7:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:40:55 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:10:53 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 4:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns. I
think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.





Can't even get a half dozen posters to behave decently *here* . You have
expectations for the country at large?

===

Define exactly what you mean by behaving decently. Would you like us
to overlook or ignore every outrageous statement that you make? Would
you like us to overlook or ignore every instance of your past
outrageous behavior? This is like a small town. If you wear out
your welcome it will never be forgotten.

I think he would like all of us to become like YKW, agree with everything he says and follow around
like a pup.



That reads like a perfect descriptor of the overzealous righties here
who want everyone to believe as they do on politics and follow their
doctrine like a pup and when they don't, why they'd better watch out.
I'm thankful the overzealous righties here and I disagree on just about
everything political. I'm also thankful all the righties here aren't
overzealous...just most of them.

Uh-huh.

Current Mood ...
 

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:27:22 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:



Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.



===



Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly

understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for

that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing

yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.

It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in

my opinion.





It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short

period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number

1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.

I think it turned south shortly thereafter.



I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the

advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly

to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.

A good article which helps explain where much of that deterioration comes from.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/01/31/for-third-year-in-a-row-fox-news-named-most-trusted-network-n1787328

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/3/14, 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:40:42 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:27:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:

Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.

===

Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly
understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for
that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing
yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.
It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in
my opinion.


It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short
period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number
1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.
I think it turned south shortly thereafter.

I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the
advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly
to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.




I don't think politics has been civil since they took Nixon down.
That was when the press took a "no holds barred" attitude and they
could make any kind of personal attack that they wanted to.
Bringing down a politician was just putting a scalp on your belt.
A rite of passage if you want to be taken seriously as a reporter

Imagine trying to elect FDR, Eisenhower or even JFK in this climate?

Bill Maher is talking about "flipping" a congressional district, just
for the **** of it. Considering he can bring the equivalent of a
couple million dollars worth of free advertising into the contest, he
could get Bieber elected in most districts.


My understanding is that he is going to do it openly and above board and
will publicly involve his audience. That puts him a few rungs higher on
the ladder than, say, the Koch Brothers pondscum. I hope Maher picks
someone good...say, some brain-damaged tea party type.

It still brings in questions about why we allow some Hollywood asshole
to pick winners and losers.

You certainly would not like it if Fox came after Stenny and sic' ed a
million O'Reilly fans on him, specifically, to the exclusion of
anyone else..



The Koch Brothers are doing what Maher is planning to do. The difference
is, Maher will be doing it openly.

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

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/3/14, 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:29:48 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


The Koch Brothers are doing what Maher is planning to do. The difference
is, Maher will be doing it openly.

The Koch brothers can't get the exposure for millions of dollars that
Maher gets for free.

I am curious how Viacom is going to feel about this Maher might get
fired again.


The Koch Brothers don't want to be out in the open. Maher does.

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

Current Mood ...
 

On 2/3/14, 2:13 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:57:40 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/3/14, 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:29:48 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


The Koch Brothers are doing what Maher is planning to do. The difference
is, Maher will be doing it openly.

The Koch brothers can't get the exposure for millions of dollars that
Maher gets for free.

I am curious how Viacom is going to feel about this Maher might get
fired again.


The Koch Brothers don't want to be out in the open. Maher does.

Why are you obsessed with the Koch brothers? Do Soros, Speilberg
Bloomberg and the other billionaires who are quietly active in
politics bother you too?


Perhaps it is because the Koch brothers are pondscum. Soros, Spielberg,
and Bloomberg are not *quietly* active, by the way.

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

Current Mood ...
 

wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:27:22 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 3:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:58:27 -0500, wrote:



Jeb is pretty sane but I doubt he will run.



===



Too bad because I think he's very electable. I can certainly

understand any reluctance on his part however, or anyone else's for

that matter. You almost have to be a bit insane to consider exposing

yourself to today's politics by mass media character assassination.

It doesn't bode well for the long term viability of our democracy in

my opinion.





It's amazing to me how much it has deteriorated in a somewhat short

period of time. Thinking back, Nixon vs Kennedy and up to Bush number

1 vs Clinton were reasonably civil and mutually respectful campaigns.

I think it turned south shortly thereafter.



I think the Internet and ability for many to express opinions and the

advent of politically biased cable TV networks have contributed greatly

to the decline of respectful political views and character assassination.

A good article which helps explain where much of that deterioration comes from.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/01/31/for-third-year-in-a-row-fox-news-named-most-trusted-network-n1787328

Now that is funny.