Let's shuffle the deck
 

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/14 6:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.


I wouldn't mind seeing Pelosi and Reid step aside for younger, tougher
leaders/advocates.

I'm going to love watching McConnell. I think Boehner knows what to do
but McConnell...he's a real pimp.

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 6:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.


I think the simple act of allowing bills to come to the floor will
change a lot. Many of the 380 plus bills Harry Reid and his "party of
NO" would not let come to the floor were bipartizan bills sent up from
the house. If I am correct, you would only need 8 dems to vote on one of
those bills with the republicans and a veto could be overridden. Do I
have my numbers right, 60 votes, right?

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.


I think the simple act of allowing bills to come to the floor will
change a lot. Many of the 380 plus bills Harry Reid and his "party of
NO" would not let come to the floor were bipartizan bills sent up from
the house. If I am correct, you would only need 8 dems to vote on one of
those bills with the republicans and a veto could be overridden. Do I
have my numbers right, 60 votes, right?


That's my understanding to make a vote veto proof.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/14 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.


I think the simple act of allowing bills to come to the floor will
change a lot. Many of the 380 plus bills Harry Reid and his "party of
NO" would not let come to the floor were bipartizan bills sent up from
the house. If I am correct, you would only need 8 dems to vote on one of
those bills with the republicans and a veto could be overridden. Do I
have my numbers right, 60 votes, right?


That's my understanding to make a vote veto proof.




If all the members of the US Senate are present, it takes 67 of them or
a two thirds majority to override a presidential veto. The percentage in
the US House is the same, a two thirds majority of the members present
when the boat is taken.


--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 6:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 6:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.


I wouldn't mind seeing Pelosi and Reid step aside for younger, tougher
leaders/advocates.

I'm going to love watching McConnell. I think Boehner knows what to do
but McConnell...he's a real pimp.



Funny but I feel the other way around. I see Boehner as a weak leader
who is just going along for the ride with golf course privileges most of
the time.

McConnell is a different story. With absolutely no charisma and a
personality that seems to border on sleazy, he's a true, professional
politician who knows how the system works and how to pull the strings.
Even in Kentucky he's not particularly well liked but he knows how to
bring home the bacon, so he keeps getting elected.

He may surprise you and actually get some things done. He's already
very subtly but cleverly beginning to make Ted Cruz a non-event in the
Republican Party's future.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much
guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this
time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.


I think the simple act of allowing bills to come to the floor will
change a lot. Many of the 380 plus bills Harry Reid and his "party of
NO" would not let come to the floor were bipartizan bills sent up from
the house. If I am correct, you would only need 8 dems to vote on
one of
those bills with the republicans and a veto could be overridden. Do I
have my numbers right, 60 votes, right?


That's my understanding to make a vote veto proof.




If all the members of the US Senate are present, it takes 67 of them
or a two thirds majority to override a presidential veto. The
percentage in the US House is the same, a two thirds majority of the
members present when the boat is taken.


Is that an imaginary boat?

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 7:52 PM, Roger wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much
guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this
time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.


I think the simple act of allowing bills to come to the floor will
change a lot. Many of the 380 plus bills Harry Reid and his "party of
NO" would not let come to the floor were bipartizan bills sent up from
the house. If I am correct, you would only need 8 dems to vote on
one of
those bills with the republicans and a veto could be overridden. Do I
have my numbers right, 60 votes, right?


That's my understanding to make a vote veto proof.




If all the members of the US Senate are present, it takes 67 of them
or a two thirds majority to override a presidential veto. The
percentage in the US House is the same, a two thirds majority of the
members present when the boat is taken.


Is that an imaginary boat?

Oh, that changes everything.. Now the republicans will have to get 13
votes from the party of no, not as easy but do-able if they compromise
and force them to actually vote on something..

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 7:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
in Kentucky he's not particularly well liked

Do you have a cite for that or is it just color commentary to your point?

but he knows how to
bring home the bacon, so he keeps getting elected.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/14 8:18 PM, KC wrote:

Bull****, there is a good chance this "not a smidgen" changed a
presidential election. I and most of the top repubs I hear


The ones you hear in your head?


--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again.... pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again.... pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/14 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again.... pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



I find it humorous that Scotty, who depends upon the government for
much, including his family's health care, supports a party that wants to
take those bennies away from him. If the GOPers take away his state or
federal bennies, he and his family will have their health care subject
to the vagaries of fate.

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 8:59 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again....
pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



I find it humorous that Scotty, who depends upon the government for
much, including his family's health care, supports a party that wants to
take those bennies away from him. If the GOPers take away his state or
federal bennies, he and his family will have their health care subject
to the vagaries of fate.



I try not to judge people based on their personal circumstances. It's
none of my business. Everyone needs some help sometimes. Hopefully
it's there if you need it.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/14 9:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:59 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again....
pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



I find it humorous that Scotty, who depends upon the government for
much, including his family's health care, supports a party that wants to
take those bennies away from him. If the GOPers take away his state or
federal bennies, he and his family will have their health care subject
to the vagaries of fate.



I try not to judge people based on their personal circumstances. It's
none of my business. Everyone needs some help sometimes. Hopefully
it's there if you need it.



It speaks volumes about his "political" judgment.

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again.... pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



Well, you should be smart enough to figure out I don't consider myself a
"top republican".... don't be such a douche..

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 9:07 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again....
pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



Well, you should be smart enough to figure out I don't consider myself a
"top republican".... don't be such a douche..


Seriously Scott, I am not pinging on you. It's just funny as hell
sometimes to read what you respond with sometimes.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 21:07:52 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/5/2014 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again.... pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



Well, you should be smart enough to figure out I don't consider myself a
"top republican".... don't be such a douche..

I think he and Harry are having a little 'togetherness' moment.
Disregard it.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:52:34 -0500, Roger wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 7:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 6:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

With the mid-term election over there will be many new faces ... both
Republican and Democrats ... taking seats in Congress next year.

Only problem is that those in the leadership positions remain. They
just swap jobs in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is pretty much
guarantied
the Senate Majority Leader position with Harry Reid pretty much
guarantied the Minority Leader position.

The House stays as it is most likely ... John Boehner as Speaker and
Nancy Pelosi as minority leader.

If I am not mistaken both houses of Congress must elect them to these
positions, although it is really just a formality.

It might be interesting for them *not* to hold those positions this
time
around. Make Congress as clean and new as possible. Their influences
represent the past, not necessarily the future.


I think the simple act of allowing bills to come to the floor will
change a lot. Many of the 380 plus bills Harry Reid and his "party of
NO" would not let come to the floor were bipartizan bills sent up from
the house. If I am correct, you would only need 8 dems to vote on
one of
those bills with the republicans and a veto could be overridden. Do I
have my numbers right, 60 votes, right?


That's my understanding to make a vote veto proof.




If all the members of the US Senate are present, it takes 67 of them
or a two thirds majority to override a presidential veto. The
percentage in the US House is the same, a two thirds majority of the
members present when the boat is taken.


Is that an imaginary boat?

That's his voice recognition software. It can't recognize the
difference between a 'v' and a 'b'. Having a bunch of broken bones in
your hand is a real bitch!

Let's shuffle the deck
 

Johnny spews...
"I think he and Harry are having a little 'togetherness' moment.
Disregard it."


Johnny, we know you desperately missed Harry while he was gone but he's back now.
You can stop trying to start trouble with other posters.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:10:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

The percentage in
the US House is the same, a two thirds majority of the members present
when the boat is taken.

===

And Harry's speech recognition software makes a freudian sloop...

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 9:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:59 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again....
pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



I find it humorous that Scotty, who depends upon the government for
much, including his family's health care, supports a party that wants to
take those bennies away from him. If the GOPers take away his state or
federal bennies, he and his family will have their health care subject
to the vagaries of fate.


Awww, harry, go ahead and make it up as you go along... you and the
other real pieces of **** here can run with it all day long if it makes
you all feel better...


I try not to judge people based on their personal circumstances. It's
none of my business. Everyone needs some help sometimes. Hopefully
it's there if you need it.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/5/2014 9:11 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 9:07 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again....
pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



Well, you should be smart enough to figure out I don't consider myself a
"top republican".... don't be such a douche..


Seriously Scott, I am not pinging on you. It's just funny as hell
sometimes to read what you respond with sometimes.



Only cause you have a krause bone you seem to need to satisfy... Being a
douche as a hobby is really pretty ****ed up though..

Let's shuffle the deck
 

In article , says...

If all the members of the US Senate are present, it takes 67 of them or
a two thirds majority to override a presidential veto. The percentage in
the US House is the same, a two thirds majority of the members present
when the boat is taken.

The same vote is required for impeachment conviction.
That's why there's no worry about a slim Republican majority in the
Senate.
Aside from Supreme Court confirmations, committees and subpoena power it
means little.
Should be fun watching them make fools of themselves.
Much like the Democrats. But worse.
The Founders were sure smart guys.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/6/2014 12:37 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 21:11:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 9:07 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again....
pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



Well, you should be smart enough to figure out I don't consider myself a
"top republican".... don't be such a douche..


Seriously Scott, I am not pinging on you. It's just funny as hell
sometimes to read what you respond with sometimes.


Come on
He did not say "I and the OTHER top republicans"



Poor dick has gone over to the harry side.... I wonder if he or his wife
has noticed the change, if anybody has said anything beyond here or if
he's just in denial..

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/6/14 5:21 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/6/2014 12:37 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 21:11:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 9:07 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try again....
pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



Well, you should be smart enough to figure out I don't consider
myself a
"top republican".... don't be such a douche..


Seriously Scott, I am not pinging on you. It's just funny as hell
sometimes to read what you respond with sometimes.


Come on
He did not say "I and the OTHER top republicans"



Poor dick has gone over to the harry side.... I wonder if he or his wife
has noticed the change, if anybody has said anything beyond here or if
he's just in denial..


I think your deck has been shuffled too many times.

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

Let's shuffle the deck
 

L'il Snot sneezes...

" Only cause you have a krause bone you seem to need to satisfy... Being a
douche as a hobby is really pretty ****ed up though.. ...."


Being a shiftless , lazy irresponsible douche is even more f**ked up....

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/6/2014 6:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/6/14 5:21 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/6/2014 12:37 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 21:11:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 9:07 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try
again....
pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not
reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



Well, you should be smart enough to figure out I don't consider
myself a
"top republican".... don't be such a douche..


Seriously Scott, I am not pinging on you. It's just funny as hell
sometimes to read what you respond with sometimes.


Come on
He did not say "I and the OTHER top republicans"



Poor dick has gone over to the harry side.... I wonder if he or his wife
has noticed the change, if anybody has said anything beyond here or if
he's just in denial..


I think your deck has been shuffled too many times.



"But I tried, didn't I? Goddamnit, at least I did that."
... Mac McMurphy

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/6/2014 7:09 AM, True North wrote:
L'il Snot sneezes...

" Only cause you have a krause bone you seem to need to satisfy... Being a
douche as a hobby is really pretty ****ed up though.. ...."


Being a shiftless , lazy irresponsible douche is even more f**ked up....


There used to be a Canadian, who posted here occasionally, who wasn't an
embarrassment to the "Queen". Do you remember his name Donnie Boy?

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/6/2014 6:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/6/14 5:21 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/6/2014 12:37 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 21:11:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2014 9:07 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/5/2014 8:51 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:36 PM, KC wrote:


Nice deflection... "most of the top repubs I hear...." try
again....
pay
particular attention to what I actually wrote :)

Why would anyone sane do that?



Actually I did pay attention to what Scott said and it's not
reflected
in the modified quote he provided (above).

His actual words were, "I and most of the top repubs I hear..."



Well, you should be smart enough to figure out I don't consider
myself a
"top republican".... don't be such a douche..


Seriously Scott, I am not pinging on you. It's just funny as hell
sometimes to read what you respond with sometimes.


Come on
He did not say "I and the OTHER top republicans"



Poor dick has gone over to the harry side.... I wonder if he or his wife
has noticed the change, if anybody has said anything beyond here or if
he's just in denial..


I think your deck has been shuffled too many times.

Has your osteopenia progressed to osteoperosis yet? Getting old is a
bitch, eh?

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On Thursday, November 6, 2014 7:09:36 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:
L'il Snot sneezes...

" Only cause you have a krause bone you seem to need to satisfy... Being a
douche as a hobby is really pretty ****ed up though.. ...."


Being a shiftless , lazy irresponsible douche is even more f**ked up....

Just like you...making your Wife work, while you jerk off to anything krause types here....fatass.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/6/2014 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, November 6, 2014 7:09:36 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:
L'il Snot sneezes...

" Only cause you have a krause bone you seem to need to satisfy... Being a
douche as a hobby is really pretty ****ed up though.. ...."


Being a shiftless , lazy irresponsible douche is even more f**ked up....

Just like you...making your Wife work, while you jerk off to anything krause types here....fatass.


You are embarrassing your queen.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

Harold sez..
" You are embarrassing your queen. "


Are you referring to the 'queens' he likes to spend time with at his favourite Southern Ontario gay bars or Her Majesty in Britain?

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/6/2014 2:45 PM, True North wrote:
Harold sez..
" You are embarrassing your queen."


Are you referring to the 'queens' he likes to spend time with at his favourite Southern Ontario gay bars or Her Majesty in Britain?


The latter. Aren't you the one who spent the afternoon in the gay bar
and called slammer as you were about to leave.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

Harrold
- hide quoted text -
On 11/6/2014 2:45 PM, True North wrote:
Harold sez..
" You are embarrassing your queen."


Are you referring to the 'queens' he likes to spend time with at his favourite Southern Ontario gay bars or Her Majesty in Britain?


"The latter. Aren't you the one who spent the afternoon in the gay bar
and called slammer as you were about to leave."


StinkyJim, why do you persist in lowering yourself to the lowest common denominator.... Which of course is the motly combo of Scott Dickson and his SugarBaby in Connecticut.
First..the Zanzibar was, and I assume still iz, a stripper bar.
I didn't go in...because Dickson chickened out and ran the opposite way.
3rd I invited him at 1300 hrs to meet me at 1900 hrs.
Even a lowly former swabbie like you should be able to figure out how much notice that would be.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/6/14 4:12 PM, True North wrote:
Harrold
- hide quoted text -
On 11/6/2014 2:45 PM, True North wrote:
Harold sez..
" You are embarrassing your queen."


Are you referring to the 'queens' he likes to spend time with at his favourite Southern Ontario gay bars or Her Majesty in Britain?


"The latter. Aren't you the one who spent the afternoon in the gay bar
and called slammer as you were about to leave."


StinkyJim, why do you persist in lowering yourself to the lowest common denominator.... Which of course is the motly combo of Scott Dickson and his SugarBaby in Connecticut.
First..the Zanzibar was, and I assume still iz, a stripper bar.
I didn't go in...because Dickson chickened out and ran the opposite way.
3rd I invited him at 1300 hrs to meet me at 1900 hrs.
Even a lowly former swabbie like you should be able to figure out how much notice that would be.



He *is* the lowest common denominator.

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

Let's shuffle the deck
 

True North wrote:
Harold sez..
" You are embarrassing your queen. "


Are you referring to the 'queens' he likes to spend time with at his
favourite Southern Ontario gay bars or Her Majesty in Britain?

Homophobic also Don!

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:26:38 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

True North wrote:
Harold sez..
" You are embarrassing your queen. "


Are you referring to the 'queens' he likes to spend time with at his
favourite Southern Ontario gay bars or Her Majesty in Britain?

Homophobic also Don!

He's proven his anti-gay and anti-adopted stance with his big mouth.

Let's shuffle the deck
 

On 11/6/2014 4:26 PM, Califbill wrote:
True North wrote:
Harold sez..
" You are embarrassing your queen."


Are you referring to the 'queens' he likes to spend time with at his
favourite Southern Ontario gay bars or Her Majesty in Britain?

Homophobic also Don!

I'm confused. Donnie says it's a gay bar then years later he says it's
not and denies ever being in the place. Was he lying then or is he lying
now?

Let's shuffle the deck
 

Harrold wrote:
On 11/6/2014 4:26 PM, Califbill wrote:
True North wrote:
Harold sez..
" You are embarrassing your queen."


Are you referring to the 'queens' he likes to spend time with at his
favourite Southern Ontario gay bars or Her Majesty in Britain?

Homophobic also Don!

I'm confused. Donnie says it's a gay bar then years later he says it's
not and denies ever being in the place. Was he lying then or is he lying now?

No, he said it was a stripper bar. Was it a gay stripper bar?