| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Wow - Crazy
I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Hope she takes that douchbag Donnie Deutsch with her. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/14/2015 9:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Hope she takes that douchbag Donnie Deutsch with her. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Heh. I caught part of "Morning Joe" this morning and noticed her outrage. Funny to watch. BTW ... my dislike of HRC goes back many years and was not spawned by the the email thing. I think she is deceitful and is prone to lies if they either protect or enhance her personal objectives. Given all that has transpired, she would have been smart to simply acknowledge that in hindsight she should have used a secure government server and email account and she should have released all requested emails and the server when she was first asked. If she's telling the truth those actions would exonerate her and none of this would be much of an issue. It's her contempt for rules, policies and an attitude that none of them apply to her that is causing her grief. A coverup is always more serious than a lack of judgement or error. |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/14/2015 9:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Hope she takes that douchbag Donnie Deutsch with her. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Forgot to mention: It wouldn't surprise me if Mika's criticism of HRC's email server problems are influenced by private discussions with her father. As National Security Adviser during the Carter years, he knows a thing or two about such matters. |
Wow - Crazy
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:19:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 8/14/2015 9:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Hope she takes that douchbag Donnie Deutsch with her. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Forgot to mention: It wouldn't surprise me if Mika's criticism of HRC's email server problems are influenced by private discussions with her father. As National Security Adviser during the Carter years, he knows a thing or two about such matters. I think it is funny that back in the 90s when they were investigating all the shady dealings in Arkansas, Hillary fell on the grenade, saying those were all her dealings and Bill was far too busy doing his politics thing to know anything about it. Now she wants us to think she is the one with clean hands, even trying to say that was actually Bill's server and she was just using it. Unfortunately Bill is not that willing to jump to her defense. He has remained silent on the issue and we have not really seen much about his use of the server at all. I do believe the old "two for the price of one" thing they were selling us 23 years ago and if there are any shady dealings, he was involved. I think the CBI may end up being more troubling than Benghazi or Email. When you have the spouse of a sitting SoS twisting arms for donations from countries we are also having diplomatic issues with, questions are raised. Those may be the emails we really needed to see and she would call them personal husband and wife communications and probably wiped shortly after they were read. |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote:
On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Wow - Crazy
amdx wrote:
On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Wow - Crazy
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:52:10 -0500, amdx wrote:
You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek === Mike, you are mud wrestling with a pig. The pig loves it and you'll get dirty. |
Wow - Crazy
amdx wrote:
On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Mikey...you were the one who posted maddow was hard to watch and then you gave reasons. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Wow - Crazy
|
Wow - Crazy
On 8/16/2015 11:23 AM, amdx wrote:
On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Oh! For a minute I thought you were talking about HRC. :-) -- 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." |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/16/2015 11:52 AM, amdx wrote:
On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus The mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on a douchebag like KKKrause, -- 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." |
Wow - Crazy
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:26:10 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Nothing wrong with her "views," though I sometimes disagree with them. Just her expression of those views. She takes 5 minutes to express what should take 30 seconds. Only to hear the sound of her own voice. She's an obvious egomaniac. She's even more selfish that O'Donnell. At least he has some guests. Last I watched she's still beginning the show with a 15 minute monologue. Then if she has an expert guest on the subject of her monologue, she'll ask the guest to validate her monologue. Her guests get little time. She endlessly repeats the same phrases over and over. She - and others at MSNBC - touted "specials" last week, where she supposedly gathered old clips of candidates, which would be the main draw of the "specials." It was just another Maddow yakfest. She's simply a motormouth. I hardly watch the show any more. Every time I flip there she's yakking, usually with no substance to speak of. She's becoming, no, "become" a joke. Lyin' Brian will be a perfect addition to that cabal |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/16/15 1:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:26:10 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Nothing wrong with her "views," though I sometimes disagree with them. Just her expression of those views. She takes 5 minutes to express what should take 30 seconds. Only to hear the sound of her own voice. She's an obvious egomaniac. She's even more selfish that O'Donnell. At least he has some guests. Last I watched she's still beginning the show with a 15 minute monologue. Then if she has an expert guest on the subject of her monologue, she'll ask the guest to validate her monologue. Her guests get little time. She endlessly repeats the same phrases over and over. She - and others at MSNBC - touted "specials" last week, where she supposedly gathered old clips of candidates, which would be the main draw of the "specials." It was just another Maddow yakfest. She's simply a motormouth. I hardly watch the show any more. Every time I flip there she's yakking, usually with no substance to speak of. She's becoming, no, "become" a joke. Lyin' Brian will be a perfect addition to that cabal Your Faux Channel was full up on lying broadcasters? Frankly, my disappointment is with the promotions of Chuck Todd. What a marshmellowed moron. |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/16/2015 11:18 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
amdx wrote: On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Mikey...you were the one who posted maddow was hard to watch and then you gave reasons. And your point? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/16/15 3:51 PM, amdx wrote:
On 8/16/2015 11:18 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Mikey...you were the one who posted maddow was hard to watch and then you gave reasons. And your point? Gee, Mikey, I guess I just don't understand your problem. I watch Ms. Maddow about once or maybe twice a week, and I don't find it hard, difficult or confusing. |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/16/2015 3:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
I watch Ms.Maddow about once or maybe twice a week, and I don't find it hard, difficult or confusing. There is no surprise there. Is it your contention I would believe otherwise? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
Wow - Crazy
amdx wrote:
On 8/16/2015 3:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: I watch Ms.Maddow about once or maybe twice a week, and I don't find it hard, difficult or confusing. There is no surprise there. Is it your contention I would believe otherwise? Mikek --- I''m not Fretwell, and therefore I don't know what you would believe. He's the one with that very special ability. 😜 -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Wow - Crazy
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:10:38 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 8/16/15 1:47 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:26:10 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Nothing wrong with her "views," though I sometimes disagree with them. Just her expression of those views. She takes 5 minutes to express what should take 30 seconds. Only to hear the sound of her own voice. She's an obvious egomaniac. She's even more selfish that O'Donnell. At least he has some guests. Last I watched she's still beginning the show with a 15 minute monologue. Then if she has an expert guest on the subject of her monologue, she'll ask the guest to validate her monologue. Her guests get little time. She endlessly repeats the same phrases over and over. She - and others at MSNBC - touted "specials" last week, where she supposedly gathered old clips of candidates, which would be the main draw of the "specials." It was just another Maddow yakfest. She's simply a motormouth. I hardly watch the show any more. Every time I flip there she's yakking, usually with no substance to speak of. She's becoming, no, "become" a joke. Lyin' Brian will be a perfect addition to that cabal Your Faux Channel was full up on lying broadcasters? I am not a Fox person. Mostly CNN. Frankly, my disappointment is with the promotions of Chuck Todd. What a marshmellowed moron. I think all of the recent host and anchor changes have been weak. Dickerson may get better, Todd is a waste of time, Lester Holt is pretty bad. What the hell happened to guys like Cronkite and Brinkley. Hell even that gas bag Rather was better than the people we have these days. |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/17/15 1:49 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:10:38 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/16/15 1:47 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:26:10 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Nothing wrong with her "views," though I sometimes disagree with them. Just her expression of those views. She takes 5 minutes to express what should take 30 seconds. Only to hear the sound of her own voice. She's an obvious egomaniac. She's even more selfish that O'Donnell. At least he has some guests. Last I watched she's still beginning the show with a 15 minute monologue. Then if she has an expert guest on the subject of her monologue, she'll ask the guest to validate her monologue. Her guests get little time. She endlessly repeats the same phrases over and over. She - and others at MSNBC - touted "specials" last week, where she supposedly gathered old clips of candidates, which would be the main draw of the "specials." It was just another Maddow yakfest. She's simply a motormouth. I hardly watch the show any more. Every time I flip there she's yakking, usually with no substance to speak of. She's becoming, no, "become" a joke. Lyin' Brian will be a perfect addition to that cabal Your Faux Channel was full up on lying broadcasters? I am not a Fox person. Mostly CNN. Frankly, my disappointment is with the promotions of Chuck Todd. What a marshmellowed moron. I think all of the recent host and anchor changes have been weak. Dickerson may get better, Todd is a waste of time, Lester Holt is pretty bad. What the hell happened to guys like Cronkite and Brinkley. Hell even that gas bag Rather was better than the people we have these days. I don't watch a lot of TV "news," especially TV "political" news. |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/17/2015 1:49 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:10:38 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/16/15 1:47 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:26:10 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Nothing wrong with her "views," though I sometimes disagree with them. Just her expression of those views. She takes 5 minutes to express what should take 30 seconds. Only to hear the sound of her own voice. She's an obvious egomaniac. She's even more selfish that O'Donnell. At least he has some guests. Last I watched she's still beginning the show with a 15 minute monologue. Then if she has an expert guest on the subject of her monologue, she'll ask the guest to validate her monologue. Her guests get little time. She endlessly repeats the same phrases over and over. She - and others at MSNBC - touted "specials" last week, where she supposedly gathered old clips of candidates, which would be the main draw of the "specials." It was just another Maddow yakfest. She's simply a motormouth. I hardly watch the show any more. Every time I flip there she's yakking, usually with no substance to speak of. She's becoming, no, "become" a joke. Lyin' Brian will be a perfect addition to that cabal Your Faux Channel was full up on lying broadcasters? I am not a Fox person. Mostly CNN. Frankly, my disappointment is with the promotions of Chuck Todd. What a marshmellowed moron. I think all of the recent host and anchor changes have been weak. Dickerson may get better, Todd is a waste of time, Lester Holt is pretty bad. What the hell happened to guys like Cronkite and Brinkley. Hell even that gas bag Rather was better than the people we have these days. We've been watching David Muir lately. Lester Holt wasn't so "bad" when compared to Brian Williams. -- 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." |
Wow - Crazy
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 06:46:23 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 8/17/15 1:49 AM, wrote: I think all of the recent host and anchor changes have been weak. Dickerson may get better, Todd is a waste of time, Lester Holt is pretty bad. What the hell happened to guys like Cronkite and Brinkley. Hell even that gas bag Rather was better than the people we have these days. I don't watch a lot of TV "news," especially TV "political" news. I usually watch it with my finger on the "skip" button. That is why I have a good idea of how much free time Trump is getting vs everyone else. I can just count the number of 30 second skips it takes to get by them. We still prefer Paul Henry from New Zealand. He covers a lot of international stuff we never hear. One thing we haven't heard much about here is the TPP. What happened to that? It is a big deal in the Pacific community. |
Wow - Crazy
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 06:46:23 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/17/15 1:49 AM, wrote: I think all of the recent host and anchor changes have been weak. Dickerson may get better, Todd is a waste of time, Lester Holt is pretty bad. What the hell happened to guys like Cronkite and Brinkley. Hell even that gas bag Rather was better than the people we have these days. I don't watch a lot of TV "news," especially TV "political" news. I usually watch it with my finger on the "skip" button. That is why I have a good idea of how much free time Trump is getting vs everyone else. I can just count the number of 30 second skips it takes to get by them. We still prefer Paul Henry from New Zealand. He covers a lot of international stuff we never hear. One thing we haven't heard much about here is the TPP. What happened to that? It is a big deal in the Pacific community. TPP? |
Wow - Crazy
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:42:06 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:
wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 06:46:23 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/17/15 1:49 AM, wrote: I think all of the recent host and anchor changes have been weak. Dickerson may get better, Todd is a waste of time, Lester Holt is pretty bad. What the hell happened to guys like Cronkite and Brinkley. Hell even that gas bag Rather was better than the people we have these days. I don't watch a lot of TV "news," especially TV "political" news. I usually watch it with my finger on the "skip" button. That is why I have a good idea of how much free time Trump is getting vs everyone else. I can just count the number of 30 second skips it takes to get by them. We still prefer Paul Henry from New Zealand. He covers a lot of international stuff we never hear. One thing we haven't heard much about here is the TPP. What happened to that? It is a big deal in the Pacific community. TPP? === http://robertreich.org/post/107257859130 |
Wow - Crazy
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:42:06 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:
wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 06:46:23 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/17/15 1:49 AM, wrote: I think all of the recent host and anchor changes have been weak. Dickerson may get better, Todd is a waste of time, Lester Holt is pretty bad. What the hell happened to guys like Cronkite and Brinkley. Hell even that gas bag Rather was better than the people we have these days. I don't watch a lot of TV "news," especially TV "political" news. I usually watch it with my finger on the "skip" button. That is why I have a good idea of how much free time Trump is getting vs everyone else. I can just count the number of 30 second skips it takes to get by them. We still prefer Paul Henry from New Zealand. He covers a lot of international stuff we never hear. One thing we haven't heard much about here is the TPP. What happened to that? It is a big deal in the Pacific community. TPP? The trade deal. Trans Pacific Partnership. We only seemed to look at it as a break for China and Korea but it is a lot more wide ranging, particularly for the smaller countries. New Zealand is mad about the dairy tariff the US and Canada charge on their products. |
Wow - Crazy
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:25:29 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:42:06 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote: wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 06:46:23 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/17/15 1:49 AM, wrote: I think all of the recent host and anchor changes have been weak. Dickerson may get better, Todd is a waste of time, Lester Holt is pretty bad. What the hell happened to guys like Cronkite and Brinkley. Hell even that gas bag Rather was better than the people we have these days. I don't watch a lot of TV "news," especially TV "political" news. I usually watch it with my finger on the "skip" button. That is why I have a good idea of how much free time Trump is getting vs everyone else. I can just count the number of 30 second skips it takes to get by them. We still prefer Paul Henry from New Zealand. He covers a lot of international stuff we never hear. One thing we haven't heard much about here is the TPP. What happened to that? It is a big deal in the Pacific community. TPP? === http://robertreich.org/post/107257859130 Reich is big on rhetoric and short on facts. It would be interesting to get actual examples and not broad generalizations but that will not be forthcoming from media companies that have a large intellectual property stake in this. Evidently they got everything they want. These are the kinds of things we never learn about until it is over. What did Nancy say, "you have to pass the bill before you can know what is in it" or words to that effect. |
Wow - Crazy
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:52:10 -0500, amdx wrote:
On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Ah, you noticed. He provides no response any time the questions get him backed into a corner or prove he's a liar. Ask him for what organization he was collecting bodies in Vietnam. So far, no one has been 'entitled' to an answer. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Wow - Crazy
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:11:20 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote:
On 8/16/2015 11:52 AM, amdx wrote: On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus The mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on a douchebag like KKKrause, A few folks haven't got the word yet. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/17/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:52:10 -0500, amdx wrote: On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Ah, you noticed. He provides no response any time the questions get him backed into a corner or prove he's a liar. Ask him for what organization he was collecting bodies in Vietnam. So far, no one has been 'entitled' to an answer. -- Ban idiots, not guns! He did say that he worked directly *under* a General. I suppose that could be interpreted a few different ways. -- 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." |
Wow - Crazy
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:12:38 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote:
On 8/17/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:52:10 -0500, amdx wrote: On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Ah, you noticed. He provides no response any time the questions get him backed into a corner or prove he's a liar. Ask him for what organization he was collecting bodies in Vietnam. So far, no one has been 'entitled' to an answer. -- Ban idiots, not guns! He did say that he worked directly *under* a General. I suppose that could be interpreted a few different ways. I think he's lying about the whole Vietnam thing. But, you're right about the different interpretations. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Wow - Crazy
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 5:02:22 AM UTC-7, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:12:38 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 8/17/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:52:10 -0500, amdx wrote: On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret.. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Ah, you noticed. He provides no response any time the questions get him backed into a corner or prove he's a liar. Ask him for what organization he was collecting bodies in Vietnam. So far, no one has been 'entitled' to an answer. -- Ban idiots, not guns! He did say that he worked directly *under* a General. I suppose that could be interpreted a few different ways. I know he's lying about the whole Vietnam thing. But, you're right about the different interpretations. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Fixed |
Wow - Crazy
2:38 - show quoted text - I know he's lying about the whole Vietnam thing. But, you're right about the different interpretations. -- Ban idiots, not guns! "Fixed" Too bad you couldn't fix The JohnnyMop's attitude as easily. |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/18/15 1:53 PM, True North wrote:
2:38 - show quoted text - I know he's lying about the whole Vietnam thing. But, you're right about the different interpretations. -- Ban idiots, not guns! "Fixed" Too bad you couldn't fix The JohnnyMop's attitude as easily. We're really not on this earth long enough to waste time worrying about ****ty people like John Herring and his good buddies here. |
Wow - Crazy
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:38:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 5:02:22 AM UTC-7, John H. wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:12:38 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 8/17/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:52:10 -0500, amdx wrote: On 8/16/2015 10:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: amdx wrote: On 8/15/2015 2:27 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/15/15 2:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 8/14/2015 8:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: I thought it was a case of temporary insanity, but Mika is REALLY against HRC. She gives no quarter and hasn't since it was revealed HRC had used a "personal" server at State. That has absolutely disqualified HRC. It's done. HRC can not be President. It's like watching Fox News, and she is just as transparent in her hatred for HRC. Almost as bad as Luddite. Look for some fireworks ahead. You can't be insane and have Democrat party guests. Doesn't mix well. She just may move to Fox. Why would she move to Fox? Just because she sees all the shenanigans that Hillary is trying to get away with and she's honest enough to call her on it? Fox has enough honest reporters, she can stay at MSNBC, maybe it's the start of an MSNBC turn around. She's become as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow. Ain't nobody as hard to watch as Rachel Maddow! Mikek Hahahahah...you're a pistol, Mikey. Rachel is hard for you to watch because, well, you'll figure it out or someone will tell you. Could it be the views she communicates, the manner in which she communicates them and the glee she gets communicating them. (often sarcastic) Ya, that's it. I didn't need any help figuring it out. What did you think it is that makes it hard to watch her? Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus You picked those reasons for your inability to comprehend. I had another reason for you in mind. At least when Rachel says something the subject is clear. You write but there is no subject, it's like you are keeping a secret. When someone asks, you have no response. Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Ah, you noticed. He provides no response any time the questions get him backed into a corner or prove he's a liar. Ask him for what organization he was collecting bodies in Vietnam. So far, no one has been 'entitled' to an answer. -- Ban idiots, not guns! He did say that he worked directly *under* a General. I suppose that could be interpreted a few different ways. I know he's lying about the whole Vietnam thing. But, you're right about the different interpretations. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Fixed ?? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Wow - Crazy
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:53:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
2:38 - show quoted text - I know he's lying about the whole Vietnam thing. But, you're right about the different interpretations. -- Ban idiots, not guns! "Fixed" Too bad you couldn't fix The JohnnyMop's attitude as easily. Didn't you ever wonder why Harry couldn't name the organization for which he 'collected bodies' in Vietnam? Or do you just accept as 'gospel' everything he says? How much sewage do you reckon those recreational boaters are dumping into Halifax harbor, Donne? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Wow - Crazy
On 8/18/15 2:00 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:53:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: 2:38 - show quoted text - I know he's lying about the whole Vietnam thing. But, you're right about the different interpretations. -- Ban idiots, not guns! "Fixed" Too bad you couldn't fix The JohnnyMop's attitude as easily. Didn't you ever wonder why Harry couldn't name the organization for which he 'collected bodies' in Vietnam? Or do you just accept as 'gospel' everything he says? Not much for language usage, hey, Johnny? Your *claim* that I "couldn't" name the organization is just another example of your bull**** spreading. Of course I could name the organization. The word you wanted was "wouldn't." Your sense of entitlement here is mind-boggling. |
Wow - Crazy
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:57:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: We're really not on this earth long enough to waste time worrying about ****ty people like John Herring and his good buddies here. It makes inquiring minds wonder why you are here. You seem to thrive on it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com