On 3/12/2015 2:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:47:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:35 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/12/15 12:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton





I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.


I wonder if the typical Boobus Americanus has any idea how far over the
line that letter was...or if he/she does, even cares. The Repubs have
been behaving so outrageously since 2009 that even this transgression
may not raise the eyebrows of the electorate.

On the other hand, the Repub POTUS wannabes seem to have absolutely
nothing to offer. Their best hope was someone who appeared statesmanlike
even though it was only the appearance of it - Romney - but he's taken
himself out of consideration. As bad a candidate as McCain was in 2008
and despite the fact that he hanged an albatross named Palin around his
neck, at least he had some standing. The current crop of GOPers are the
personification of bozos.


McCain also signed the Iran letter.


If Hillary was still in the senate, she might have signed to too, or
at least been leaning that way. She was in lock step with McCain and
the neocons the whole time she was there.


Doubtful. She's changing her image. All she has in her mind is
breaking the glass ceiling and going down in history.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/12/15 12:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton




I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.


I wonder if the typical Boobus Americanus has any idea how far over the
line that letter was...or if he/she does, even cares. The Repubs have
been behaving so outrageously since 2009 that even this transgression may
not raise the eyebrows of the electorate.

On the other hand, the Repub POTUS wannabes seem to have absolutely
nothing to offer. Their best hope was someone who appeared statesmanlike
even though it was only the appearance of it - Romney - but he's taken
himself out of consideration. As bad a candidate as McCain was in 2008
and despite the fact that he hanged an albatross named Palin around his
neck, at least he had some standing. The current crop of GOPers are the
personification of bozos.


What does Hillary offer?

On 3/12/2015 4:05 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:44:05 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

What does Hillary offer?

Tits, saggy ones at that.



I was going to say "balls" but I'll keep my mouth shut.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:08:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/12/2015 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

I think many of you are being led by the nose by the Dems and the media.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/

Just some of that story:

"Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels...That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow." Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:


We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value." Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:


The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we-the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern-that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition."

The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement."

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy." Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it." As Tom Cotton said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate."



There is no comparison of the examples you set forth and what Cotton and
the band of idiots just did. Furthermore, I am not in any way reacting
to any liberal or Democratic media hype. I came to this opinion all by
myself.

No sitting senator or House member should attempt to undermine
negotiations by directly addressing the party with whom discussions are
being held and basically threaten that
any progress or agreements will be voided once the current POTUS leaves
office.

Treason in my book. Sorry if you disagree.


You've gone from stupid to treason. I'll buy stupid. Treason is what I'd expect Harry
to say.
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/12/2015 4:05 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:44:05 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

What does Hillary offer?

Tits, saggy ones at that.



I was going to say "balls" but I'll keep my mouth shut.

I'm hoping for a crazy GOP pair in 2016...racist tea baggers.

--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

On 3/12/2015 3:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's
PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton




I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

I think many of you are being led by the nose by the Dems and the media.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/


Just some of that story:

"Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool
himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the
regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The
Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back
word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if
Congress rejected aid to the rebels...That week the House initially
voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip
to Moscow." Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:


We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in
contravention of international law, against the Organization of
American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we
not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half
the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is
that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to
throw them out, they don't want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike
Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to
play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the
groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W.
Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the
American people in order to get us into this war." McDermott, along
with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give
the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face
value." Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:


The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my
opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we-the United
States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these
inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open.
And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only
Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we
were emphasizing. That was our primary concern-that and looking at the
humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News'
Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi
Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that
it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to
war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had
taken shape shortly after 9/11." That would have given Saddam Hussein
fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush
administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The
New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues,
including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace
talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry
Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J.
Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus
bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now
that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by
the opposition."

The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief
power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states,
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur..." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes,
Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority
under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in
this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made
as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception,
the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement."

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House
profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping
US foreign policy." Among other elements of that role: decrying
President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and
vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it." As Tom Cotton
said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the
institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President
submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he
did on numerous deals during his time in Senate."

course of action

There is no comparison of the examples you set forth and what Cotton and
the band of idiots just did. Furthermore, I am not in any way reacting
to any liberal or Democratic media hype. I came to this opinion all by
myself.

No sitting senator or House member should attempt to undermine
negotiations by directly addressing the party with whom discussions are
being held and basically threaten that
any progress or agreements will be voided once the current POTUS leaves
office.

Treason in my book. Sorry if you disagree.




Impeachment for a long list of unauthorized acts culminating with
attempts to make unauthorized deals with Iran would have been a better
course of action. But this Congress doesn't have the balls to rein him
in properly.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

In article ,
says...


Democrats won't let the letter die. It will be used as an example of
Republican stupidity. Not all Republicans are that dumb of course but
it will take a lot of convincing by someone to sweep this absurd action
under the rug.


I agree not all Republicans Senators are that dumb.
Only 47 of 54. After all, that's only 87%.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?

On 3/12/15 5:39 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?



It would be fun to see the 47 prosecuted under the Logan Act.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On 3/12/15 4:28 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:08:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/12/2015 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

I think many of you are being led by the nose by the Dems and the media.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/

Just some of that story:

"Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels...That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow." Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:


We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value." Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:


The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we-the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern-that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition."

The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement."

One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy." Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it." As Tom Cotton said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate."



There is no comparison of the examples you set forth and what Cotton and
the band of idiots just did. Furthermore, I am not in any way reacting
to any liberal or Democratic media hype. I came to this opinion all by
myself.

No sitting senator or House member should attempt to undermine
negotiations by directly addressing the party with whom discussions are
being held and basically threaten that
any progress or agreements will be voided once the current POTUS leaves
office.

Treason in my book. Sorry if you disagree.


You've gone from stupid to treason. I'll buy stupid. Treason is what I'd expect Harry
to say.


It would be fun to see the 47 morons prosecuted under the Logan Act. A
case could be made for prosecution.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.