The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

Won't be long before HRC officially announces her candidacy for POTUS.
What will her platform be? How will it differ from the Republicans?
Will she push for "Medicare for all?" Higher minimum wage?
Tax restructuring? She should go big. Does she have the guts for it?
It should be very interesting. Or not.

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On 3/16/2015 4:50 PM, Boating All Out wrote:

Won't be long before HRC officially announces her candidacy for POTUS.
What will her platform be? How will it differ from the Republicans?
Will she push for "Medicare for all?" Higher minimum wage?
Tax restructuring? She should go big. Does she have the guts for it?
It should be very interesting. Or not.



Love how committal you are in your comments.

Hillary's primary platform goal is to go down in history as the first
woman elected POTUS.

Beyond that, what difference does it make?

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

Boating All Out wrote:
Won't be long before HRC officially announces her candidacy for POTUS.
What will her platform be? How will it differ from the Republicans?
Will she push for "Medicare for all?" Higher minimum wage?
Tax restructuring? She should go big. Does she have the guts for it?
It should be very interesting. Or not.

She will push for war with everyone in the Middle East we are not currently
in battles with.

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On 3/16/15 5:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/16/2015 4:50 PM, Boating All Out wrote:

Won't be long before HRC officially announces her candidacy for POTUS.
What will her platform be? How will it differ from the Republicans?
Will she push for "Medicare for all?" Higher minimum wage?
Tax restructuring? She should go big. Does she have the guts for it?
It should be very interesting. Or not.



Love how committal you are in your comments.

Hillary's primary platform goal is to go down in history as the first
woman elected POTUS.

Beyond that, what difference does it make?



It'll prevent the election of one of the many Republican nutcases
seeking that office.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

In article ,
says...

On 3/16/2015 4:50 PM, Boating All Out wrote:

Won't be long before HRC officially announces her candidacy for POTUS.
What will her platform be? How will it differ from the Republicans?
Will she push for "Medicare for all?" Higher minimum wage?
Tax restructuring? She should go big. Does she have the guts for it?
It should be very interesting. Or not.



Love how committal you are in your comments.

Hillary's primary platform goal is to go down in history as the first
woman elected POTUS.

Beyond that, what difference does it make?

Believe me, it'll make a difference to voters. Without addressing the
problems of the nation - real or perceived - and having concrete
solutions for them, she could lose the election.
She should know that. I'm expecting "big."
But I could be disappointed. She has to have something to get my vote.
But really, it won't take much to trump Republican "ideas."

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 4:50:38 PM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
Won't be long before HRC officially announces her candidacy for POTUS.
What will her platform be? How will it differ from the Republicans?
Will she push for "Medicare for all?" Higher minimum wage?
Tax restructuring? She should go big. Does she have the guts for it?
It should be very interesting. Or not.

She's as ****ing ugly as krause, and as stupid as dicklicker white.

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On 3/16/2015 9:46 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

Used recovered TARP money to fund programs at local housing finance
agencies in California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona and Michigan.
http://on.msnbc.com/i1i8eV

Crafted and signed an executive order establishing the President’s
Advisory Council on Financial Capability to assist in financial
education for all Americans. http://bit.ly/eyqsNE

China’s largest manufacturer,

Ask yourself are you better off now than 6 years ago. Didn't think so.

--

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."

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:20:39 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Oh, by the way, the Center for Public Integrity alleges that the Bush
administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and
2003 about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.

===

Oh goodness gracious, that's almost as many false statements as you
have made in a single year.

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:03:15 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:20:39 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Oh, by the way, the Center for Public Integrity alleges that the Bush
administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and
2003 about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.

===

Oh goodness gracious, that's almost as many false statements as you
have made in a single year.

It's hard to believe Krause is discussing integrity.
--

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

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:07:24 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:03:15 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:20:39 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Oh, by the way, the Center for Public Integrity alleges that the Bush
administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and
2003 about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.

===

Oh goodness gracious, that's almost as many false statements as you
have made in a single year.

It's hard to believe Krause is discussing integrity.

===

I don't think he even knows what it is.

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:03:15 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:20:39 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Oh, by the way, the Center for Public Integrity alleges that the Bush
administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and
2003 about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.

===

Oh goodness gracious, that's almost as many false statements as you
have made in a single year.

It's hard to believe Krause is discussing integrity.

Hard to believe a racist like you would even bring that up.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On 17 Mar 2015 14:13:22 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:03:15 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:20:39 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Oh, by the way, the Center for Public Integrity alleges that the Bush
administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and
2003 about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.

===

Oh goodness gracious, that's almost as many false statements as you
have made in a single year.

It's hard to believe Krause is discussing integrity.

Hard to believe a racist like you would even bring that up.

Actually, you brought it up. Very inappropriately I might add.
--

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

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

In article ,
says...


Her Republican opponents won't tread there?
Then what's all this "Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi" all about?

Good question. You tell me.

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On 3/17/2015 3:04 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Her Republican opponents won't tread there?
Then what's all this "Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi" all about?

Good question. You tell me.



The only thing that bothers me about the Benghazi thing is some of the
testimony given by Hillary herself to the House Committee.

She claims she never saw any of the requests for additional security
and never saw some of the initial reports about the attack.
She very pointedly shifted any possible blame for lack of action or
attention to staff underlings in the State Department.

In the world I live in the Captain is ultimately responsible for
anything that occurs in his command. If she truly was not informed it
indicates an even broader problem of leadership and management on her part.

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:04:50 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Her Republican opponents won't tread there?
Then what's all this "Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi" all about?

Good question. You tell me.

It is just their way of avoiding the real question. Why did we allow
Q-daffy to fall without having a clue who was going to take over?
Our support of the "freedom fighters" was short sighted to say the
least.

Quit complaining. You just said we shouldn't be over there.
Now you say we should have propped up Qadafi with our military.
That's why they don't come to you for foreign policy advice.

The Excitement is Soon To Build
 

On 3/18/2015 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:51:49 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:04:50 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Her Republican opponents won't tread there?
Then what's all this "Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi" all about?

Good question. You tell me.

It is just their way of avoiding the real question. Why did we allow
Q-daffy to fall without having a clue who was going to take over?
Our support of the "freedom fighters" was short sighted to say the
least.

Quit complaining. You just said we shouldn't be over there.
Now you say we should have propped up Qadafi with our military.
That's why they don't come to you for foreign policy advice.


And we SHOULDN'T have (perhaps I phrased that wrong)
We didn't need to give him military assistance, we only had to NOT
assist the "rebels" or prevent other arabs from assisting him. The US
and the Brits gave the rebels active military assistance, fired a ****
load of Tomahawks and other stand off munitions and imposed a no fly
zone. (sound familiar).
That was the same pattern as our Iraqi misadventure except Saddam
didn't fall under that assault so we had to go get him. The end result
was the same tho. They are both a stronghold of islamic terrorists.
When are we going to learn?
We have asserted ourselves into a number of civil wars in that area
and every one of them turned out bad for us.


The US did not unilaterally go "after" Saddam. Saddam was increasingly
in violation of several UN Resolutions that he agreed to after being
kicked out of Kuwait.

What's the point in having the UN if it's authority and Resolutions can
be ignored at will?