The leading...
 

On 10/19/15 5:49 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 5:30 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 4:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain
you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate
claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the
Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.


They have principles but few that I can comfortably subscribe to.
Trump has some fundamental beliefs outside of the Tea Party's take over
and influence but it's hard to imagine him as POTUS. He expresses some
of the popular frustrations but doesn't have any realistic fixes.

I suppose I *could* make life simple and just pick a party and be happy
to vote for it's nominee, regardless of who he or she is. Like you do.




Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that
rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.


That's at odds with statements you've made in the past.
You have stated several times that you would support and vote
for the Democrat nominee period. You are a party guy.



Well, how could I support the Republican nominees, when those nominees
take positions that are racist, anti-student, anti-woman, anti-abortion,
anti-immigrant, anti-environment, anti-worker, et cetera, and are so
proud of it. I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue. You
want me to vote for people like that?

The leading...
 

On 10/19/15 5:59 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:30:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 4:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.


They have principles but few that I can comfortably subscribe to.
Trump has some fundamental beliefs outside of the Tea Party's take over
and influence but it's hard to imagine him as POTUS. He expresses some
of the popular frustrations but doesn't have any realistic fixes.

I suppose I *could* make life simple and just pick a party and be happy
to vote for it's nominee, regardless of who he or she is. Like you do.




Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.


I don't fail to vote for the candidates I agree with the most. Those are
the candidates I vote for...

The leading...
 

On 10/19/2015 6:14 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 5:49 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 5:30 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 4:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain
you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if
Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of
course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate
claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the
Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.


They have principles but few that I can comfortably subscribe to.
Trump has some fundamental beliefs outside of the Tea Party's take over
and influence but it's hard to imagine him as POTUS. He expresses some
of the popular frustrations but doesn't have any realistic fixes.

I suppose I *could* make life simple and just pick a party and be happy
to vote for it's nominee, regardless of who he or she is. Like you do.




Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues
that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that
rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.


That's at odds with statements you've made in the past.
You have stated several times that you would support and vote
for the Democrat nominee period. You are a party guy.



Well, how could I support the Republican nominees, when those nominees
take positions that are racist, anti-student, anti-woman, anti-abortion,
anti-immigrant, anti-environment, anti-worker, et cetera, and are so
proud of it. I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue. You
want me to vote for people like that?


Of course not and I'd be disappointed if you did. That's not the point
though. You have stated many times that you would support and vote for
the Democrat nominee, regardless of who it may be. Are you now
suggesting that you might *not* support or vote for the Democrat nominee
if he/she were found to be ... let's see ... maybe a proven
liar with a long history of questionable and deceitful activities?

The leading...
 

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:22:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Are you now
suggesting that you might *not* support or vote for the Democrat nominee
if he/she were found to be ... let's see ... maybe a proven
liar with a long history of questionable and deceitful activities?

===

Harry wouldn't know lying, deceitful or questionable if he tripped
over them and fell.

The leading...
 

- show quoted text -
Sorry, Tim, but I'm not a fan of the Communist Party, nor do I vote for
non-mainstream political party candidates. I do feel confident, though,
that if Trump is the GOP nominee, you will vote for him.
..........

Harry Potter f you really want.......
........

Good old autocorrect. How could "Harry perhaps if". Turn into "Harry Potter " I don't know. Fumble finger typing and didn't catch a proof read.
Lol!

The leading...
 

Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.


I don't fail to vote for the candidates I agree with the most. Those are
the candidates I vote for...

As long as they are democrats

The leading...
 

On 10/19/15 6:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 6:14 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 5:49 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 5:30 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 4:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain
you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if
Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of
course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate
claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the
Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.


They have principles but few that I can comfortably subscribe to.
Trump has some fundamental beliefs outside of the Tea Party's take
over
and influence but it's hard to imagine him as POTUS. He expresses
some
of the popular frustrations but doesn't have any realistic fixes.

I suppose I *could* make life simple and just pick a party and be
happy
to vote for it's nominee, regardless of who he or she is. Like you
do.




Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues
that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that
rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.


That's at odds with statements you've made in the past.
You have stated several times that you would support and vote
for the Democrat nominee period. You are a party guy.



Well, how could I support the Republican nominees, when those nominees
take positions that are racist, anti-student, anti-woman, anti-abortion,
anti-immigrant, anti-environment, anti-worker, et cetera, and are so
proud of it. I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue. You
want me to vote for people like that?


Of course not and I'd be disappointed if you did. That's not the point
though. You have stated many times that you would support and vote for
the Democrat nominee, regardless of who it may be. Are you now
suggesting that you might *not* support or vote for the Democrat nominee
if he/she were found to be ... let's see ... maybe a proven
liar with a long history of questionable and deceitful activities?

You mean, as opposed to a Republican candidate who is a proved liar with
a long history of blah, blah, blah? Like, oh, Trump, Carson, Cruz,
Fiorina, et al?

The leading...
 

On 10/19/15 6:43 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Sorry, Tim, but I'm not a fan of the Communist Party, nor do I vote for
non-mainstream political party candidates. I do feel confident, though,
that if Trump is the GOP nominee, you will vote for him.
.........

Harry Potter f you really want.......
.......

Good old autocorrect. How could "Harry perhaps if". Turn into "Harry Potter " I don't know. Fumble finger typing and didn't catch a proof read.
Lol!


Turn off autocorrect.

The leading...
 

On 10/19/15 7:06 PM, wrote:

Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.


I don't fail to vote for the candidates I agree with the most. Those are
the candidates I vote for...

As long as they are democrats


Well, there haven't been any Republicans running for statewide or
national office I agree with...so what are you suggesting?

The leading...
 

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:07:34 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/19/15 6:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 6:14 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 5:49 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 5:30 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 4:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain
you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if
Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of
course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate
claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the
Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.


They have principles but few that I can comfortably subscribe to.
Trump has some fundamental beliefs outside of the Tea Party's take
over
and influence but it's hard to imagine him as POTUS. He expresses
some
of the popular frustrations but doesn't have any realistic fixes.

I suppose I *could* make life simple and just pick a party and be
happy
to vote for it's nominee, regardless of who he or she is. Like you
do.




Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues
that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that
rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.


That's at odds with statements you've made in the past.
You have stated several times that you would support and vote
for the Democrat nominee period. You are a party guy.



Well, how could I support the Republican nominees, when those nominees
take positions that are racist, anti-student, anti-woman, anti-abortion,
anti-immigrant, anti-environment, anti-worker, et cetera, and are so
proud of it. I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue. You
want me to vote for people like that?


Of course not and I'd be disappointed if you did. That's not the point
though. You have stated many times that you would support and vote for
the Democrat nominee, regardless of who it may be. Are you now
suggesting that you might *not* support or vote for the Democrat nominee
if he/she were found to be ... let's see ... maybe a proven
liar with a long history of questionable and deceitful activities?

You mean, as opposed to a Republican candidate who is a proved liar with
a long history of blah, blah, blah? Like, oh, Trump, Carson, Cruz,
Fiorina, et al?

More like you, a proven liar.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

The leading...
 

In article ra6a2b1mo1kidlok4242rh1msjhgrjqjim@
4ax.com, says...

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:15:10 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



Well, if you are looking for a total lack of credibility, there's always
Trey Gowdy and his fellow GOP bull****ters on the Benghazi Committee.

One thing seems to be true. The Clintons are so good at covering their
tracks that the only thing they might ever be convicted of is perjury
and obstruction of justice. Hillary worked on the Watergate committee
and she knows that without the tapes, Nixon would have retired as a
respected former president who survived an onslaught from the vast
left wing conspiracy. You can bet your ass there are no "Clinton
tapes" or anything else that might come back to haunt them.
I am always amazed at the people who do not understand the difference
between having your own mail server and having a personal account
with Gmail, Hotmail or a web host. (like everyone else mentioned who
had "private" email accounts)
If you delete an Email on your own server, you virtually smell the
smoke of it burning. Not so on any of the other services. Hillary knew
that and I assume any sensitive communications were burned right after
reading.

That is fantasy. Email has at least two ends to it,
plus places in the middle where it can be captured.
HRC obviously did all her dirty deals employing a
"cone of silence," ala Maxwell Smart.

I still think they should follow the money if they really want to find
the dirt. Was there any quid pro quo on the massive contributions
state actors made to the CGI? There is certainly the potential of a
conflict of interest there. It doesn't take much of a minor policy
shift at State to put a lot of extra cash in the pocket of a foreign
government official.

That'll work. Just need a Congressional Committee to
look into it.
Oh, wait...

The leading...
 

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:10:08 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 7:06 PM, wrote:

Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.


I don't fail to vote for the candidates I agree with the most. Those are
the candidates I vote for...

As long as they are democrats


Well, there haven't been any Republicans running for statewide or
national office I agree with...so what are you suggesting?

The words "yellow dog democrat" spring to mind.

Maybe it is just that they know how to talk to their base in a
campaign, no matter what they are going to do after being elected.
Bill is the perfect example. He had you all gushing and creaming in
your jeans for 8 years while he was deregulating wall street,
repealing most of the "new deal" banking laws, signing DOMA and "don't
ask", "reforming" welfare and passing trade deals that made Walmart
the biggest retailer in the world. (Remember Hillary was on their
board)
He maintained the Iraq war for 8 years and settled for a deal in
Bosnia which assured ethnic cleansing could continue. His "prosperity"
was largely built on a bubble called "irrational exuberance" by his
fed chair alo0ng with a whole lot of plain old fraud. It was crashing
before he got out of town and all of those "surplus" projections were
vanishing before our eyes..

You still want his face on Rushmore. That is a yellow dog democrat.

Do you really trust Hillary to be what she says she will be after all
of that? More that half of the democrats polled don't trust her now.
They will still vote for her, get what they get and pretend they are
happy about it.
Woof Woof

The leading...
 

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:48:45 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ra6a2b1mo1kidlok4242rh1msjhgrjqjim@
4ax.com, says...

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:15:10 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



Well, if you are looking for a total lack of credibility, there's always
Trey Gowdy and his fellow GOP bull****ters on the Benghazi Committee.

One thing seems to be true. The Clintons are so good at covering their
tracks that the only thing they might ever be convicted of is perjury
and obstruction of justice. Hillary worked on the Watergate committee
and she knows that without the tapes, Nixon would have retired as a
respected former president who survived an onslaught from the vast
left wing conspiracy. You can bet your ass there are no "Clinton
tapes" or anything else that might come back to haunt them.
I am always amazed at the people who do not understand the difference
between having your own mail server and having a personal account
with Gmail, Hotmail or a web host. (like everyone else mentioned who
had "private" email accounts)
If you delete an Email on your own server, you virtually smell the
smoke of it burning. Not so on any of the other services. Hillary knew
that and I assume any sensitive communications were burned right after
reading.

That is fantasy. Email has at least two ends to it,
plus places in the middle where it can be captured.
HRC obviously did all her dirty deals employing a
"cone of silence," ala Maxwell Smart.

If the other end of that Email was another Clinton, on the same server
.... poof.
The deals themselves were going to be made face to face.



I still think they should follow the money if they really want to find
the dirt. Was there any quid pro quo on the massive contributions
state actors made to the CGI? There is certainly the potential of a
conflict of interest there. It doesn't take much of a minor policy
shift at State to put a lot of extra cash in the pocket of a foreign
government official.

That'll work. Just need a Congressional Committee to
look into it.
Oh, wait...

.... or just a few young newspaper guys actually willing to do the work
on the ground. Without the Washington Post and WoodStein, the
Watergate committee wouldn't have found anything.

The leading...
 

On 10/19/15 10:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:10:08 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 7:06 PM, wrote:

Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.


I don't fail to vote for the candidates I agree with the most. Those are
the candidates I vote for...

As long as they are democrats


Well, there haven't been any Republicans running for statewide or
national office I agree with...so what are you suggesting?

The words "yellow dog democrat" spring to mind.

Maybe it is just that they know how to talk to their base in a
campaign, no matter what they are going to do after being elected.
Bill is the perfect example. He had you all gushing and creaming in
your jeans for 8 years while he was deregulating wall street,
repealing most of the "new deal" banking laws, signing DOMA and "don't
ask", "reforming" welfare and passing trade deals that made Walmart
the biggest retailer in the world. (Remember Hillary was on their
board)
He maintained the Iraq war for 8 years and settled for a deal in
Bosnia which assured ethnic cleansing could continue. His "prosperity"
was largely built on a bubble called "irrational exuberance" by his
fed chair alo0ng with a whole lot of plain old fraud. It was crashing
before he got out of town and all of those "surplus" projections were
vanishing before our eyes..

You still want his face on Rushmore. That is a yellow dog democrat.

Do you really trust Hillary to be what she says she will be after all
of that? More that half of the democrats polled don't trust her now.
They will still vote for her, get what they get and pretend they are
happy about it.
Woof Woof



I trust Mrs. Clinton a lot more than any of the GOPers who want the
nomination. Are you suggesting I vote for a Libertarian? That's funny.

The leading...
 

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 06:08:09 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/19/15 10:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:10:08 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 7:06 PM, wrote:

Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.


I don't fail to vote for the candidates I agree with the most. Those are
the candidates I vote for...

As long as they are democrats


Well, there haven't been any Republicans running for statewide or
national office I agree with...so what are you suggesting?

The words "yellow dog democrat" spring to mind.

Maybe it is just that they know how to talk to their base in a
campaign, no matter what they are going to do after being elected.
Bill is the perfect example. He had you all gushing and creaming in
your jeans for 8 years while he was deregulating wall street,
repealing most of the "new deal" banking laws, signing DOMA and "don't
ask", "reforming" welfare and passing trade deals that made Walmart
the biggest retailer in the world. (Remember Hillary was on their
board)
He maintained the Iraq war for 8 years and settled for a deal in
Bosnia which assured ethnic cleansing could continue. His "prosperity"
was largely built on a bubble called "irrational exuberance" by his
fed chair alo0ng with a whole lot of plain old fraud. It was crashing
before he got out of town and all of those "surplus" projections were
vanishing before our eyes..

You still want his face on Rushmore. That is a yellow dog democrat.

Do you really trust Hillary to be what she says she will be after all
of that? More that half of the democrats polled don't trust her now.
They will still vote for her, get what they get and pretend they are
happy about it.
Woof Woof



I trust Mrs. Clinton a lot more than any of the GOPers who want the
nomination. Are you suggesting I vote for a Libertarian? That's funny.

To you, integrity is a meaningless concept.

Tell us again about searching for dead soldiers in Vietnam, Krause.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

The leading...
 

On 10/20/2015 6:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 10:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:10:08 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 7:06 PM, wrote:

Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on
issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days,
that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste
votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status
quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business
candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.


I don't fail to vote for the candidates I agree with the most.
Those are
the candidates I vote for...

As long as they are democrats


Well, there haven't been any Republicans running for statewide or
national office I agree with...so what are you suggesting?

The words "yellow dog democrat" spring to mind.

Maybe it is just that they know how to talk to their base in a
campaign, no matter what they are going to do after being elected.
Bill is the perfect example. He had you all gushing and creaming in
your jeans for 8 years while he was deregulating wall street,
repealing most of the "new deal" banking laws, signing DOMA and "don't
ask", "reforming" welfare and passing trade deals that made Walmart
the biggest retailer in the world. (Remember Hillary was on their
board)
He maintained the Iraq war for 8 years and settled for a deal in
Bosnia which assured ethnic cleansing could continue. His "prosperity"
was largely built on a bubble called "irrational exuberance" by his
fed chair alo0ng with a whole lot of plain old fraud. It was crashing
before he got out of town and all of those "surplus" projections were
vanishing before our eyes..

You still want his face on Rushmore. That is a yellow dog democrat.

Do you really trust Hillary to be what she says she will be after all
of that? More that half of the democrats polled don't trust her now.
They will still vote for her, get what they get and pretend they are
happy about it.
Woof Woof



I trust Mrs. Clinton a lot more than any of the GOPers who want the
nomination. Are you suggesting I vote for a Libertarian? That's funny.

Never mind the comparisons. Do you trust Mrs Clinton? Yes or no?

The leading...
 

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 06:08:09 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 10:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:10:08 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 7:06 PM, wrote:

Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.


I don't fail to vote for the candidates I agree with the most. Those are
the candidates I vote for...

As long as they are democrats


Well, there haven't been any Republicans running for statewide or
national office I agree with...so what are you suggesting?

The words "yellow dog democrat" spring to mind.

Maybe it is just that they know how to talk to their base in a
campaign, no matter what they are going to do after being elected.
Bill is the perfect example. He had you all gushing and creaming in
your jeans for 8 years while he was deregulating wall street,
repealing most of the "new deal" banking laws, signing DOMA and "don't
ask", "reforming" welfare and passing trade deals that made Walmart
the biggest retailer in the world. (Remember Hillary was on their
board)
He maintained the Iraq war for 8 years and settled for a deal in
Bosnia which assured ethnic cleansing could continue. His "prosperity"
was largely built on a bubble called "irrational exuberance" by his
fed chair alo0ng with a whole lot of plain old fraud. It was crashing
before he got out of town and all of those "surplus" projections were
vanishing before our eyes..

You still want his face on Rushmore. That is a yellow dog democrat.

Do you really trust Hillary to be what she says she will be after all
of that? More that half of the democrats polled don't trust her now.
They will still vote for her, get what they get and pretend they are
happy about it.
Woof Woof



I trust Mrs. Clinton a lot more than any of the GOPers who want the
nomination. Are you suggesting I vote for a Libertarian? That's funny.

So you will just hold your nose and vote for the crook the
establishment sends you.

It is no wonder nothing ever changes. As long as they know that nobody
will ever vote for a 3d party, there will only be ONE. The
Remocrat/Depublicans, bribed by the same cabal

The leading...
 

On 10/20/15 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 06:08:09 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 10:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:10:08 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 7:06 PM, wrote:

Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.


I don't fail to vote for the candidates I agree with the most. Those are
the candidates I vote for...

As long as they are democrats


Well, there haven't been any Republicans running for statewide or
national office I agree with...so what are you suggesting?

The words "yellow dog democrat" spring to mind.

Maybe it is just that they know how to talk to their base in a
campaign, no matter what they are going to do after being elected.
Bill is the perfect example. He had you all gushing and creaming in
your jeans for 8 years while he was deregulating wall street,
repealing most of the "new deal" banking laws, signing DOMA and "don't
ask", "reforming" welfare and passing trade deals that made Walmart
the biggest retailer in the world. (Remember Hillary was on their
board)
He maintained the Iraq war for 8 years and settled for a deal in
Bosnia which assured ethnic cleansing could continue. His "prosperity"
was largely built on a bubble called "irrational exuberance" by his
fed chair alo0ng with a whole lot of plain old fraud. It was crashing
before he got out of town and all of those "surplus" projections were
vanishing before our eyes..

You still want his face on Rushmore. That is a yellow dog democrat.

Do you really trust Hillary to be what she says she will be after all
of that? More that half of the democrats polled don't trust her now.
They will still vote for her, get what they get and pretend they are
happy about it.
Woof Woof



I trust Mrs. Clinton a lot more than any of the GOPers who want the
nomination. Are you suggesting I vote for a Libertarian? That's funny.

So you will just hold your nose and vote for the crook the
establishment sends you.

It is no wonder nothing ever changes. As long as they know that nobody
will ever vote for a 3d party, there will only be ONE. The
Remocrat/Depublicans, bribed by the same cabal


You really need to stop projecting. I don't have any serious issues with
Mrs. Clinton as POTUS. And it is fine with me if you want to toss your
vote away on an unknown, untried, no experience whatsoever libertarian.
Oh, wait...maybe Jim Webb will announce a run as an Indy. That should
move his rating in the polls from what, zero, to what, zero plus you and
Luddite?

The leading...
 

On 10/20/15 11:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:44:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I liked Bill Clinton, and I liked him as POTUS. He lied about a blowjob.
His successor lied us into shooting wars with ground troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

The difference between fiction and history is fact.


Sure...right...whatever you say.

The leading...
 

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:21:02 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/20/15 11:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:44:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I liked Bill Clinton, and I liked him as POTUS. He lied about a blowjob.
His successor lied us into shooting wars with ground troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

The difference between fiction and history is fact.


Sure...right...whatever you say.

Fiction - you retrieving bodies of dead soldiers.

Fact - the owls 'down by the creek' weren't.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

The leading...
 

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:21:02 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/20/15 11:15 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:44:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I liked Bill Clinton, and I liked him as POTUS. He lied about a blowjob.
His successor lied us into shooting wars with ground troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

The difference between fiction and history is fact.


Sure...right...whatever you say.

Another brain fart from Harry. What did I say that was wrong?

Are you seriously going to say that Clinton did not repeal Glass
Steagall and sign the CFMA that allowed the derivatives that
threatened the banking system?

Are you going to make the absurd allegation that bombing Iraq for 8
years was not war? Clinton started it in August of 1992.
This was largely done from bases in Saudi Arabia and lots of Saudis
were not happy about it. Remember Khobar Towers and the first WTC
attack.

In fact if we had stopped that war and got our troops out of Saudi
Arabia, there is plenty of reason to believe that there would not have
been a 9-11 attack. Remember that was really a Saudi terrorist attack,
not Afghanis or Iraqis. OBL's excuse was that the US had troops in
Saudi Arabia and that was why 19 of the 20 hijackers were Saudi.

The leading...
 

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:37:10 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



How many U.S. and allied troops were killed in Iraq during Clinton's two
terms? How many were killed during Dubya's two terms?

Next?


Yeah we don't give a **** about how many brown and black people he
killed, as long as we were safe.

You gloss over the fact that 9-11 was blamed on us flying these
missions out of Saudi Arabia. It was planned long before GW was
elected.

The leading...
 

In article ,
says...

On 10/21/15 6:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Bill Clinton is just as responsible for what happened in 2003 as GWB is.



Bull****.

http://tinyurl.com/dx36p46

Whoa there. I thought it was Harry Truman's fault.
Or was it FDR?

The leading...
 

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:31:51 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 10/21/15 6:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Bill Clinton is just as responsible for what happened in 2003 as GWB is.



Bull****.

http://tinyurl.com/dx36p46

Whoa there. I thought it was Harry Truman's fault.
Or was it FDR?

You might as well blame King George V who created Iraq from the
remnants of the Ottoman Empire