On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:09:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 6:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:46:47 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:01:40 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 3:08 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:58:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:37:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 12:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:01:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/25/18 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:57:23 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Tim wrote:
Way to go, Rahm!
https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/...-cars-innocent


Nice way to use a right-wing site to **** on Chicago. Good job.

Why do you thing that is a "right wing" site? Granted they worry about
personal rights and government abuse of them but so does the ACLU. In
this case it is the CPD screwing over another black guy. I would think
you thought that was wrong. I bet if it happened in Montgomery you
would be ready to march or something.


It's a "libertarian" site, ergo, right-wing.

You really do not understand what a Libertarian is do you? I support
supporting the constitution and human/civil rights is a "right wing"
issue to you.
I bet you also think supporting the right to choose, marriage equality
and ending the drug war is a right wing issue too.
Amazing.


Yeah, you probably buy that libertarian nonsense, but the reality is
that libertarians are Republicans. If they want to win federal office,
they run as Republicans. If it looks like ****, smells like ****, and
acts like ****, it is a Republican.

... and democrats are communists. so what?

The fact remains that libertarians separate themselves from the
righteous right on virtually everything but you are to blind to see
that.


Separate but equal...libertarians elected to national office run as
Republicans.

That is simply because the system is rigged and you can't run as any
kind of 3d party.


More likely, it is because most Americans view the Libertarians as
crackpots.

Tell me true, would you rather have Trump or Gary?


Neither. Both are unqualified, and for at least two of the same
reasons...ignorance and intellectual laziness.

I think Johnson was better than Trump and certainly better than
Hillary. The idea that Johnson is stupid or lazy is contradicted by
his record in New Mexico.


He was ignorant and lazy during his presidential campaign...he had no
knowledge of important facts and he didn't bother to cram.

Cram for what? The amount of exposure he was allowed to get was not
worth much cramming. If he had perfect answers for everything we would
not have seen him at all. He got more press from blowing the Aleppo
question than anything else he could have done. The lesson of Trump's
campaign was not lost on him. There is no such thing as bad press.

On 4/26/18 7:27 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:18:04 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



Perot was a crackpot politician.

Simply because you do not understand what he was trying to say.
He may have actually just been too smart for the American voter,

Uh-huh. And there were mystery people after his daughter, and he picked
a political nitwit for a running mate.

Wrote in message:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:02:24 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 3:32 PM, Tim wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:21:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
We just explained it to you. The system is rigged and they won't let
anyone not a R or a D play the game. After Harry Browne and Ross Perot
embarrassed Bush and Clinton so badly, nobody can even get into the
show.

.......
I agree with that. Ross probably would have won if he hadn?t backed out then hopped back in. I was poised to vote for him.



Ha ha ha ha. Crackpot Perot.

To you, anyone who does not believe the government and the debt can
continue exponentially forever is a crackpot.


Aw Fat Harry. Perot was talking over your head? Most of the rest
of us got it.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Tim Wrote in message:
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:18:06 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:02:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:21:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 1:16 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/26/18 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:37:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 12:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:01:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/25/18 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:57:23 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Tim wrote:
Way to go, Rahm!
https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/...-cars-innocent


Nice way to use a right-wing site to **** on Chicago. Good job.

Why do you thing that is a "right wing" site? Granted they worry about
personal rights and government abuse of them but so does the ACLU. In
this case it is the CPD screwing over another black guy. I would think
you thought that was wrong. I bet if it happened in Montgomery you
would be ready to march or something.


It's a "libertarian" site, ergo, right-wing.

You really do not understand what a Libertarian is do you? I support
supporting the constitution and human/civil rights is a "right wing"
issue to you.
I bet you also think supporting the right to choose, marriage equality
and ending the drug war is a right wing issue too.
Amazing.


Yeah, you probably buy that libertarian nonsense, but the reality is
that libertarians are Republicans. If they want to win federal office,
they run as Republicans. If it looks like ****, smells like ****, and
acts like ****, it is a Republican.

... and democrats are communists. so what?

The fact remains that libertarians separate themselves from the
righteous right on virtually everything but you are to blind to see
that.


Separate but equal...libertarians elected to national office run as
Republicans.


Well, since the debates eliminated anybody not running as a Republican or
as a Democrat.


Oh, that must be it. OK, name the libertarians who ran and won federal
office...U.S. Senate or House...as Libertarians and not as Republicans.

We just explained it to you. The system is rigged and they won't let
anyone not a R or a D play the game. After Harry Browne and Ross Perot
embarrassed Bush and Clinton so badly, nobody can even get into the
show.


Bull****.

I am not surprised you feel that way but it is certainly true Perot
and Browne asked the embarrassing questions in that debate. Bush and
Clinton were just reciting their stump speech, over and over again,
whether it was responsive to the questions or not and the moderators
were letting them get away with it. After 96, 3d parties were not
allowed in the debates anymore and they became nothing more than
regurgitated campaign rhetoric with no serious questions at all.

The thing that did come out of that was some of the very real
questions about the debt, caused the Gingrich revolt in 94 and the
attempt at a balanced budget for a few years.
Since then, it has never actually been a serious topic and we never
see the numbers that Perot had developed to explain the problem.



Perot was a crackpot politician.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

He was an extremely successful businessman who wanted to put America back to work.


He wanted to make America great again. The big question is why are
the democrats so dead set about tearing this country
apart?
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

justan
Tim Wrote in message:
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:18:06 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:02:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:21:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 1:16 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/26/18 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:37:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 12:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:01:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/25/18 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:57:23 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:
- show quoted text -
He wanted to make America great again. The big question is why are
the democrats so dead set about tearing this country
apart?
- show quoted text -
...........

I always wondered why all the lying, conniving, and backstabbing from the DNC? They must like eating their own.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 21:18:39 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Tim Wrote in message:

He was an extremely successful businessman who wanted to put America back to work.


He wanted to make America great again. The big question is why are
the democrats so dead set about tearing this country
apart?

Democrats think Cuba and Argentina are the perfect worker's paradise.
Anything we do differently is just evil capitalism.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:22:56 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

justan
Tim Wrote in message:
On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:18:06 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:02:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:21:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 1:16 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/26/18 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:37:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 12:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:01:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/25/18 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:57:23 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:
- show quoted text -
He wanted to make America great again. The big question is why are
the democrats so dead set about tearing this country
apart?
- show quoted text -
..........

I always wondered why all the lying, conniving, and backstabbing from the DNC? They must like eating their own.

The strangest thing to me is the democrats are bitching about a few
trolls on Facebook "meddling" in the election and most of what they
were talking about was the truth about how Hillary was stabbing Bernie
in the back.

On 4/26/18 5:49 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:02:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:21:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 1:16 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/26/18 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:37:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 12:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:01:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/25/18 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:57:23 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Tim wrote:
Way to go, Rahm!
https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/...-cars-innocent


Nice way to use a right-wing site to **** on Chicago. Good job.

Why do you thing that is a "right wing" site? Granted they worry about
personal rights and government abuse of them but so does the ACLU. In
this case it is the CPD screwing over another black guy. I would think
you thought that was wrong. I bet if it happened in Montgomery you
would be ready to march or something.


It's a "libertarian" site, ergo, right-wing.

You really do not understand what a Libertarian is do you? I support
supporting the constitution and human/civil rights is a "right wing"
issue to you.
I bet you also think supporting the right to choose, marriage equality
and ending the drug war is a right wing issue too.
Amazing.


Yeah, you probably buy that libertarian nonsense, but the reality is
that libertarians are Republicans. If they want to win federal office,
they run as Republicans. If it looks like ****, smells like ****, and
acts like ****, it is a Republican.

... and democrats are communists. so what?

The fact remains that libertarians separate themselves from the
righteous right on virtually everything but you are to blind to see
that.


Separate but equal...libertarians elected to national office run as
Republicans.


Well, since the debates eliminated anybody not running as a Republican or
as a Democrat.


Oh, that must be it. OK, name the libertarians who ran and won federal
office...U.S. Senate or House...as Libertarians and not as Republicans.

We just explained it to you. The system is rigged and they won't let
anyone not a R or a D play the game. After Harry Browne and Ross Perot
embarrassed Bush and Clinton so badly, nobody can even get into the
show.


Bull****.

I am not surprised you feel that way but it is certainly true Perot
and Browne asked the embarrassing questions in that debate. Bush and
Clinton were just reciting their stump speech, over and over again,
whether it was responsive to the questions or not and the moderators
were letting them get away with it. After 96, 3d parties were not
allowed in the debates anymore and they became nothing more than
regurgitated campaign rhetoric with no serious questions at all.

The thing that did come out of that was some of the very real
questions about the debt, caused the Gingrich revolt in 94 and the
attempt at a balanced budget for a few years.
Since then, it has never actually been a serious topic and we never
see the numbers that Perot had developed to explain the problem.



Wow...what a view of history. My disdain for Libertarians is based on
the fact, and I mean fact, that they are just modern Republicans who say
they are in favor of loosening regulations against marijuana...oh, and
they have less feelings of civic responsibility than modern Republicans.
Oh, and of course, their candidates tend to be way over the edge.

Every so often during an election cycle, the Libertarians set up a booth
outside a shopping center to meet and greet. I usually stop to see what
insane nonsense they are trying to peddle and if they have any
interesting candidates. Neither the ideas nor the candidates impress me,
and it isn't because I am a Democrat. They are...bizarre.

On 4/27/2018 8:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:


Wow...what a view of history. My disdain for Libertarians is based on
the fact, and I mean fact, that they are just modern Republicans who say
they are in favor of loosening regulations against marijuana...

So Cryin' Chuck is now a Libertarian?


http://time.com/5247431/senator-chuck-schumer-marijuana-decriminalize-bill/

Keyser Soze
- hide quoted text -
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:18:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:02:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:21:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 1:16 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/26/18 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:37:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/26/18 12:57 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:01:23 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/25/18 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:57:23 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Tim wrote:
Way to go, Rahm!
https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/...-cars-innocent


Nice way to use a right-wing site to **** on Chicago. Good job.

Why do you thing that is a "right wing" site? Granted they worry about
personal rights and government abuse of them but so does the ACLU. In
this case it is the CPD screwing over another black guy. I would think
you thought that was wrong. I bet if it happened in Montgomery you
would be ready to march or something.


It's a "libertarian" site, ergo, right-wing.

You really do not understand what a Libertarian is do you? I support
supporting the constitution and human/civil rights is a "right wing"
issue to you.
I bet you also think supporting the right to choose, marriage equality
and ending the drug war is a right wing issue too.
Amazing.


Yeah, you probably buy that libertarian nonsense, but the reality is
that libertarians are Republicans. If they want to win federal office,
they run as Republicans. If it looks like ****, smells like ****, and
acts like ****, it is a Republican.

... and democrats are communists. so what?

The fact remains that libertarians separate themselves from the
righteous right on virtually everything but you are to blind to see
that.


Separate but equal...libertarians elected to national office run as
Republicans.


Well, since the debates eliminated anybody not running as a Republican or
as a Democrat.


Oh, that must be it. OK, name the libertarians who ran and won federal
office...U.S. Senate or House...as Libertarians and not as Republicans.

We just explained it to you. The system is rigged and they won't let
anyone not a R or a D play the game. After Harry Browne and Ross Perot
embarrassed Bush and Clinton so badly, nobody can even get into the
show.


Bull****.

I am not surprised you feel that way but it is certainly true Perot
and Browne asked the embarrassing questions in that debate. Bush and
Clinton were just reciting their stump speech, over and over again,
whether it was responsive to the questions or not and the moderators
were letting them get away with it. After 96, 3d parties were not
allowed in the debates anymore and they became nothing more than
regurgitated campaign rhetoric with no serious questions at all.

The thing that did come out of that was some of the very real
questions about the debt, caused the Gingrich revolt in 94 and the
attempt at a balanced budget for a few years.
Since then, it has never actually been a serious topic and we never
see the numbers that Perot had developed to explain the problem.



Perot was a crackpot politician.

A crackpot calling the pot black. Wow.

Have you tried Tim's crockpot recipe, crackpot?


Whatever his business smarts, Perot was a political crackpot.
- show quoted text -

,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Wow Harry. Looks like your filters aren’t too good or Johns posts are really transparent. I thought you had him blocked?