On 10/19/15 10:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 10:06 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 8:15 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 5:30:43 AM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 1:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/18/2015 8:04 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/18/15 7:44 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/18/2015 5:01 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...GOP candidate...

"Donald Trump says that if he had been president in 2001, his
immigration policies would have kept terrorists from attacking the
World
Trade Center on September 11.

"I am extremely, extremely tough on illegal immigration. I'm
extremely
tough on people coming into this country," Trump said on Fox News
Sunday. "I believe that if I were running things, I doubt those
families
would have -- I doubt that those people would have been in the
country."

- - -

Donald Trump, the *perfect* asshole candidate for the party of
assholes.
Really. And just behind Trump, another asshole candidate, Ben
Carson.
Crikey.


You (nor I) have no way of knowing if Trump's position on illegal
immigration would have prevented al-Qaeda from sending
terrorists to
the USA to attend flight schools in preparation for the 9/11
attacks had
he been POTUS at the time. Warnings of "something is up" were
raised back when Clinton was still in office for cripes sake and he
didn't do anything about it either.

That said, you crack me up (again). In the past you have placed
responsibility for 9/11 squarely on GWB because it happened on his
watch. Trump basically just said the same thing but now he's a
"perfect
asshole" according to you.



I don't recall Trump's policies on immigration in 2001. Do you?
And he
wasn't "running things" back then and it isn't likely he'll be
"running
things" beyond his businesses in the future.

I doubt if Trump knew what Bush did or did not do in the lead up to
2001. His knowledge of such things seems non-existent.



Not what Trump said. He said "if" he had been POTUS at the time with
the illegal immigration position that he has described *now*, the
terrorists may not have been able to get into the USA.


And you believe that, right? Hey, Trump, Carson, and the rest of the
GOP
wannabe bozos are exactly what the Republicans deserve in
2016...politically naive, ignorant, hate-filled, science-denying idiots
who appeal to the "base" of the party. The only difficult part is to
figure out on a given day which one is the worst.

"If" Trump had been president in 2001, we'd be trying to recover from
global thermonuclear war...

Harry are you scared of Trump? you must be because you blast him
every chance you can.



Why would I be scared of Trump, Tim? I just am enjoying the fact that
your party seems intent on nominating one of several unsuitable flaming
asses for POTUS. Trump, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Bush, et
cetera...crikey, what a crowd you boys have.


On the other hand, we have a choice of Hillary the Hun who could fool a
polygraph machine or Bernie the Socialist who wants to re-write the
Constitution. Think I'll just sit this one out.



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.

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

On 10/19/15 10:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 10:06 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 8:15 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 5:30:43 AM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 1:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/18/2015 8:04 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/18/15 7:44 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/18/2015 5:01 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...GOP candidate...

"Donald Trump says that if he had been president in 2001, his
immigration policies would have kept terrorists from attacking the
World
Trade Center on September 11.

"I am extremely, extremely tough on illegal immigration. I'm
extremely
tough on people coming into this country," Trump said on Fox News
Sunday. "I believe that if I were running things, I doubt those
families
would have -- I doubt that those people would have been in the
country."

- - -

Donald Trump, the *perfect* asshole candidate for the party of
assholes.
Really. And just behind Trump, another asshole candidate, Ben
Carson.
Crikey.


You (nor I) have no way of knowing if Trump's position on illegal
immigration would have prevented al-Qaeda from sending
terrorists to
the USA to attend flight schools in preparation for the 9/11
attacks had
he been POTUS at the time. Warnings of "something is up" were
raised back when Clinton was still in office for cripes sake and he
didn't do anything about it either.

That said, you crack me up (again). In the past you have placed
responsibility for 9/11 squarely on GWB because it happened on his
watch. Trump basically just said the same thing but now he's a
"perfect
asshole" according to you.



I don't recall Trump's policies on immigration in 2001. Do you?
And he
wasn't "running things" back then and it isn't likely he'll be
"running
things" beyond his businesses in the future.

I doubt if Trump knew what Bush did or did not do in the lead up to
2001. His knowledge of such things seems non-existent.



Not what Trump said. He said "if" he had been POTUS at the time with
the illegal immigration position that he has described *now*, the
terrorists may not have been able to get into the USA.


And you believe that, right? Hey, Trump, Carson, and the rest of the
GOP
wannabe bozos are exactly what the Republicans deserve in
2016...politically naive, ignorant, hate-filled, science-denying idiots
who appeal to the "base" of the party. The only difficult part is to
figure out on a given day which one is the worst.

"If" Trump had been president in 2001, we'd be trying to recover from
global thermonuclear war...

Harry are you scared of Trump? you must be because you blast him
every chance you can.



Why would I be scared of Trump, Tim? I just am enjoying the fact that
your party seems intent on nominating one of several unsuitable flaming
asses for POTUS. Trump, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Bush, et
cetera...crikey, what a crowd you boys have.


On the other hand, we have a choice of Hillary the Hun who could fool a
polygraph machine or Bernie the Socialist who wants to re-write the
Constitution. Think I'll just sit this one out.



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.

Or just look at the author of your post, eh?

Which unit were you with in Vietnam? How're those owls doing, eh? Your red barn been
repainted yet?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

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.
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.

On 10/19/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
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.
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.


Perhaps Trey will call you as a witness next week.

- 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!)

On 10/19/15 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!)


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.

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.

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.

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.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:39:32 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
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.
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.


Perhaps Trey will call you as a witness next week.

They are still looking for their "Butterfield". Before he showed up,
Nixon was looking like he would get off the hook.
I just believe that the Clintons are better at covering up. When they
write their books, facts are not so important to them that they need
first source records that may be incriminating.
The idea that there was any residual data on that server after all
these years only pointed out how little people know about computers.