Luddite's Candidates?
 

http://tinyurl.com/nt7nl3k

Luddite's Candidates?
 

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:29:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/nt7nl3k

Posted by one with a 95% lie rating.
--

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

Luddite's Candidates?
 

On 6/3/2015 12:29 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nt7nl3k


You crack me up. I am not necessarily "pro" Republican, nor am I
necessarily anti-Democrat. I've stated that before.

I just don't want to see Hillary Clinton as our next POTUS because
I think she is totally unqualified.

Luddite's Candidates?
 

On 6/3/2015 8:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/3/2015 12:29 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nt7nl3k


You crack me up. I am not necessarily "pro" Republican, nor am I
necessarily anti-Democrat. I've stated that before.

I just don't want to see Hillary Clinton as our next POTUS because
I think she is totally unqualified.


And corrupt.

Mikek

Luddite's Candidates?
 

On 6/3/15 9:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/3/2015 12:29 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nt7nl3k


You crack me up. I am not necessarily "pro" Republican, nor am I
necessarily anti-Democrat. I've stated that before.

I just don't want to see Hillary Clinton as our next POTUS because
I think she is totally unqualified.



She's certainly more qualified than any of the "leading" candidates on
the Republican side, and she's not crazy or hate-filled, as most of them
seem to be.

Luddite's Candidates?
 

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:49:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

she's not crazy or hate-filled, as most of them
seem to be.

===

I thought you were talking about yourself.

Luddite's Candidates?
 

On 6/4/15 9:44 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:49:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/3/15 9:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/3/2015 12:29 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nt7nl3k


You crack me up. I am not necessarily "pro" Republican, nor am I
necessarily anti-Democrat. I've stated that before.

I just don't want to see Hillary Clinton as our next POTUS because
I think she is totally unqualified.



She's certainly more qualified than any of the "leading" candidates on
the Republican side, and she's not crazy or hate-filled, as most of them
seem to be.

It is truly sad that the best we have to offer is a Clinton and a
Bush.
We have made politics such an unattractive profession that only the
egomaniacs will even try.
Unfortunately, they are the ones who end up running the government.
Then you wonder why I don't trust the government.



The only presidents I can recall from the onset of my political
consciousness who weren't egomaniacs were Gerry Ford and Jimmy Carter
and, in the latter part of his retirement, Harry S Truman. When I was
working at the KC Star, I had a side job that required me to call Harry
S Truman a few times a year for "comments" and we always had a good
laugh as he found clever ways to avoid the question.*

I trust the large-scale corporate world far less than I do the
government at the local, state, and federal levels. I think most
government agencies at least try to "do the right thing" by the people.
Doing the right thing doesn't seem to be part of the big time corporate
mindset anymore. At least in the good old days, companies paid lip
service to the idea.



* Newsweek and Time Magazine had separate "stringers" in those days
whose sole part-time "contracts" required an occasional call or visit to
the Truman household for a "comment." I had the gig for a couple of
years. If memory serves, I got paid $50 whether Truman responded
appropriately or not. This was in a bygone era, when a former POTUS
could take a pleasant walk unaccompanied along the streets of his hometown.

Luddite's Candidates?
 

On 6/4/15 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:05:53 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/4/15 9:44 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:49:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/3/15 9:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/3/2015 12:29 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nt7nl3k


You crack me up. I am not necessarily "pro" Republican, nor am I
necessarily anti-Democrat. I've stated that before.

I just don't want to see Hillary Clinton as our next POTUS because
I think she is totally unqualified.



She's certainly more qualified than any of the "leading" candidates on
the Republican side, and she's not crazy or hate-filled, as most of them
seem to be.

It is truly sad that the best we have to offer is a Clinton and a
Bush.
We have made politics such an unattractive profession that only the
egomaniacs will even try.
Unfortunately, they are the ones who end up running the government.
Then you wonder why I don't trust the government.



The only presidents I can recall from the onset of my political
consciousness who weren't egomaniacs were Gerry Ford and Jimmy Carter
and, in the latter part of his retirement, Harry S Truman. When I was
working at the KC Star, I had a side job that required me to call Harry
S Truman a few times a year for "comments" and we always had a good
laugh as he found clever ways to avoid the question.*

I trust the large-scale corporate world far less than I do the
government at the local, state, and federal levels. I think most
government agencies at least try to "do the right thing" by the people.
Doing the right thing doesn't seem to be part of the big time corporate
mindset anymore. At least in the good old days, companies paid lip
service to the idea.

Corporations large and small have done more to benefit the people than
government handout programs.


The issue was governmental versus corporate trust. You're raising a
different issue, and the answer to that one is...debatable.

Luddite's Candidates?
 

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 10:37:48 -0400, wrote:

This had nothing to do with how much the detent cost.
The question was how much it would cost to retrofit that part in cars
that were already sold simply to protect stupid people..

===

It has been said that you can't fix stupid. GM's biggest failure was
going into denial/coverup mode.

Luddite's Candidates?
 

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 12:14:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:20:00 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 10:37:48 -0400, wrote:

This had nothing to do with how much the detent cost.
The question was how much it would cost to retrofit that part in cars
that were already sold simply to protect stupid people..

===

It has been said that you can't fix stupid. GM's biggest failure was
going into denial/coverup mode.

At the time, they simply did not have the $3 billion to recall all of
those cars. They were already bankrupt. They just were not admitting
it.
It is hard to say this was all about profit when the company had not
made a profit in years.

===

They would look a lot less culpable now if they had analyzed the
problem and issued a warning about oversized/overweight key rings. If
they'd done that in a timely manner it's possible they could have
finessed the recall altogether.