On 10/24/2015 7:32 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/24/15 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.



I think the GOPers, in a way, provided Mrs. Clinton with the
opportunity of the first real presidential debate. She is formidable in
an adversarial venue in ways that her GOPer competitors are not.


Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.

On 10/24/15 8:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 7:32 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/24/15 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving
fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get
Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.



I think the GOPers, in a way, provided Mrs. Clinton with the
opportunity of the first real presidential debate. She is formidable in
an adversarial venue in ways that her GOPer competitors are not.


Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.



Well, she was pressed pretty hard, harder than she would be by reporters
or by any of the GOPer wannabes, and her performance was close to
flawless. She'll have a lot of fun with the two know-nothings, Trump and
Carson, and will easily handle any of the others.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:32:45 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.



I think the GOPers, in a way, provided Mrs. Clinton with the
opportunity of the first real presidential debate. She is formidable in
an adversarial venue in ways that her GOPer competitors are not.

Ted Cruz could slice and dice her in a debate, if facts mean anything
to you. I am not a big fan of his politics but he has good
credentials.

On 10/24/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:32:45 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.



I think the GOPers, in a way, provided Mrs. Clinton with the
opportunity of the first real presidential debate. She is formidable in
an adversarial venue in ways that her GOPer competitors are not.

Ted Cruz could slice and dice her in a debate, if facts mean anything
to you. I am not a big fan of his politics but he has good
credentials.


The problem with Cruz is that he continuously goes way over the line. He
can't control himself, and he'll look like the asshole he is. And I
doubt if he could beat Mrs. Clinton in a debate. What he has mostly
is...attitude.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:37:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.


The question in a good debate would be how those "facts" contributed
to the failed policies in the middle east.
That was the problem with the hearings. They were trying to make bad
policy a criminal matter. It is as stupid as saying Dick Cheney should
be hauled into the dock for his bad policy decisions.
If we did that Sudan could charge Bill Clinton for murder in his
aspirin factory bombing.

On 10/24/15 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:37:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.


The question in a good debate would be how those "facts" contributed
to the failed policies in the middle east.
That was the problem with the hearings. They were trying to make bad
policy a criminal matter. It is as stupid as saying Dick Cheney should
be hauled into the dock for his bad policy decisions.
If we did that Sudan could charge Bill Clinton for murder in his
aspirin factory bombing.



You're a funny guy, especially when you don't mean to be.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:10:24 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:32:45 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.



I think the GOPers, in a way, provided Mrs. Clinton with the
opportunity of the first real presidential debate. She is formidable in
an adversarial venue in ways that her GOPer competitors are not.

Ted Cruz could slice and dice her in a debate, if facts mean anything
to you. I am not a big fan of his politics but he has good
credentials.


The problem with Cruz is that he continuously goes way over the line. He
can't control himself, and he'll look like the asshole he is. And I
doubt if he could beat Mrs. Clinton in a debate. What he has mostly
is...attitude.

Cruz is pretty smart and a Harvard educated debater. Unfortunately we
don't really have debates these days., They are just Q&A sessions
where the candidates get all of the questions in advance.

After he 96 debates where Perot and Browne sliced and diced Clinton
and Dole, with questions they did not want to answer, the parties made
sure that would never happen again. Now debates are just another stop
on the campaign trail where they get to recite lines from their stump
speech.

On 10/24/15 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:10:24 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:32:45 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.



I think the GOPers, in a way, provided Mrs. Clinton with the
opportunity of the first real presidential debate. She is formidable in
an adversarial venue in ways that her GOPer competitors are not.

Ted Cruz could slice and dice her in a debate, if facts mean anything
to you. I am not a big fan of his politics but he has good
credentials.


The problem with Cruz is that he continuously goes way over the line. He
can't control himself, and he'll look like the asshole he is. And I
doubt if he could beat Mrs. Clinton in a debate. What he has mostly
is...attitude.

Cruz is pretty smart and a Harvard educated debater. Unfortunately we
don't really have debates these days., They are just Q&A sessions
where the candidates get all of the questions in advance.

After he 96 debates where Perot and Browne sliced and diced Clinton
and Dole, with questions they did not want to answer, the parties made
sure that would never happen again. Now debates are just another stop
on the campaign trail where they get to recite lines from their stump
speech.


I remember that Perot made an ass of himself, as usual. Browne made no
impression whatsoever...

Libertarians make a great show out of discussing the politically
impossible, which is one of the reasons why they'll never win a
presidential election.

Who is fighting for the Libertarian nomination in 2016? Ron Paul? Bob
Barr? Someone else who can get 1/2 of 1% of the vote? So long as they
suck those votes from the Republicans, it's fine with me.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:41:07 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/24/15 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:37:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.


The question in a good debate would be how those "facts" contributed
to the failed policies in the middle east.
That was the problem with the hearings. They were trying to make bad
policy a criminal matter. It is as stupid as saying Dick Cheney should
be hauled into the dock for his bad policy decisions.
If we did that Sudan could charge Bill Clinton for murder in his
aspirin factory bombing.



You're a funny guy, especially when you don't mean to be.

From one who is a lying f'ing joke, eh Krause?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 10/24/2015 12:01 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/24/15 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:10:24 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:32:45 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we
have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before
the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving
fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get
Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.



I think the GOPers, in a way, provided Mrs. Clinton with the
opportunity of the first real presidential debate. She is
formidable in
an adversarial venue in ways that her GOPer competitors are not.

Ted Cruz could slice and dice her in a debate, if facts mean anything
to you. I am not a big fan of his politics but he has good
credentials.


The problem with Cruz is that he continuously goes way over the line. He
can't control himself, and he'll look like the asshole he is. And I
doubt if he could beat Mrs. Clinton in a debate. What he has mostly
is...attitude.

Cruz is pretty smart and a Harvard educated debater. Unfortunately we
don't really have debates these days., They are just Q&A sessions
where the candidates get all of the questions in advance.

After he 96 debates where Perot and Browne sliced and diced Clinton
and Dole, with questions they did not want to answer, the parties made
sure that would never happen again. Now debates are just another stop
on the campaign trail where they get to recite lines from their stump
speech.


I remember that Perot made an ass of himself, as usual. Browne made no
impression whatsoever...

Libertarians make a great show out of discussing the politically
impossible, which is one of the reasons why they'll never win a
presidential election.

Who is fighting for the Libertarian nomination in 2016? Ron Paul? Bob
Barr? Someone else who can get 1/2 of 1% of the vote? So long as they
suck those votes from the Republicans, it's fine with me.


Greg makes a great point about the "debates" though. They are not
debates. I remember one a while back ... maybe it was when Perot
was running ... when the participants were allowed to ask questions
of each other and have a give and take on whatever the issue they raised
was.