Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/21/15 7:53 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 7:39 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:


Well, it's her campaign, after all.

True but it's her's to lose. As a former newspaper man don't you think
a responsible journalist is entitled to a straight answer from a
candidate so the public can be informed? Thus far Hillary has
demonstrated more of a queen's "entitlement" attitude to the throne.
Screw what anyone else is questioning.

Oh, I dunno...two of the GOP frontrunners got into doo-doo last week by
snarking at reporters who asked them fairly softballish questions...Rafel
Cruz and Randal Paul.

Like the one who asked a candidate to Rap for her?

On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the
public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who
wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may
be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated
an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office.

She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically
gives the public the royal finger.

If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS
have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary".

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:05:50 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the
public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who
wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may
be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated
an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office.

She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically
gives the public the royal finger.

If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS
have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary".

I will never forget her enemies' list, and the subsequent "Filegate", the disappearance of the FBI files of all her enemies. After a long search the FBI finally discovered them in Hillary's bedroom. But there are so many of her misdeeds. Fortunately, in this day and age there is a record of all of them.

Besides, Hillary needs to take ownership and give a true apology for her valor stealing attempts she made with her lies of "I ran from snipers in Bosnia, now that's what happened". The cover up lie "I misspoke" is hurting her badly.

On 4/22/2015 5:53 AM, Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:05:50 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the
public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who
wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may
be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated
an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office.

She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically
gives the public the royal finger.

If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS
have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary".

I will never forget her enemies' list, and the subsequent "Filegate", the disappearance of the FBI files of all her enemies. After a long search the FBI finally discovered them in Hillary's bedroom. But there are so many of her misdeeds. Fortunately, in this day and age there is a record of all of them.



Besides, Hillary needs to take ownership and give a true apology for her valor stealing attempts she made with her lies of "I ran from snipers in Bosnia, now that's what happened". The cover up lie "I misspoke" is hurting her badly.


If asked ... and assuming she would answer ... it would probably be:

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

(and then a silent "pound sand")

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 04:05:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the
public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who
wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may
be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated
an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office.

She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically
gives the public the royal finger.

If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS
have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary".


By God, At Last! Finally an honest man speaking logic!

Yes Sir, "Mr. Luddite", writing from and demanding
the TRUTH!

Apparently "irony" is no longer a word in American English.

--
and a good day to you Sir,

the Mighty Ant

On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is
toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the
public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who
wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may
be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated
an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office.

She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically
gives the public the royal finger.

If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS
have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary".



I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi."

My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the
White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic
candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of
having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too
horrific to contemplate.

On 4/22/15 6:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 5:53 AM, Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:05:50 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband"
type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer
entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative
speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the
book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is
toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the
public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who
wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may
be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated
an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office.

She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically
gives the public the royal finger.

If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS
have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary".

I will never forget her enemies' list, and the subsequent "Filegate",
the disappearance of the FBI files of all her enemies. After a long
search the FBI finally discovered them in Hillary's bedroom. But there
are so many of her misdeeds. Fortunately, in this day and age there is
a record of all of them.



Besides, Hillary needs to take ownership and give a true apology for
her valor stealing attempts she made with her lies of "I ran from
snipers in Bosnia, now that's what happened". The cover up lie "I
misspoke" is hurting her badly.


If asked ... and assuming she would answer ... it would probably be:

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

(and then a silent "pound sand")






These polls don't mean a lot, but they do mean something:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/president/

Hillary mops the floor with *any* of the frontrunner GOPers.

On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband" type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative
speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the
book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is
toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the
public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who
wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may
be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated
an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office.

She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically
gives the public the royal finger.

If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS
have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary".



I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi."

My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the
White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic
candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of
having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too
horrific to contemplate.




I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary
because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why
some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in
her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to
say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect.

May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb
to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job.

On 4/22/15 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband"
type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer
entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative
speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the
book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is
toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the
public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who
wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may
be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated
an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office.

She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically
gives the public the royal finger.

If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS
have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary".



I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi."

My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the
White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic
candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of
having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too
horrific to contemplate.




I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary
because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why
some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in
her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to
say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect.

May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb
to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job.




I'm familiar with Webb. Aside from the geographic proximity problem,
he'd be a first-class Veep candidate for Hillary.

On 4/22/2015 7:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 7:08 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/22/15 4:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2015 9:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mrs. Clinton is unilaterally deciding which questions she will answer
and which ones she will not.


So what? Why should she answer "Did you stop beating your husband"
type
questions? She is telling her opponents to pound sand. Just like I
told you she would do. If your "feelings" are hurt - good for you.

Don't know if there is anything to the book by Peter Schweizer
entitled
"Clinton Cash" that will be released next month or not
It reportedly ties her activities as Sec. of State to lucrative
speaking
engagement contracts for hubby Bill. We'll have to wait and see what
the detailed evidence is.


Why wait? Wild and unsupported accusations should be good enough.

Meanwhile, Mrs. C. has brushed it off as a "Republican "distraction"
from the issues of her campaign. She didn't confirm or deny the
book's
allegations. She simply refused to answer the journalist's question
(again) and answered what *she* wanted to answer.


IOW "pound sand."

And, of course, there's no email evidence of any secret "deals".
Her server files have been sanitized.


Master criminals such as HRC don't use email to commit their dastardly
deeds. You have to get them on tape.

Again, I don't know if the allegations made in Schweizer's book are
true or not or if they can be proved. But, if they can, Hillary is
toast.

She may be toast anyway. People are increasingly becoming suspicious
and uncomfortable with her evasiveness in telling the truth.

So if it proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
And if it's NOT proved she did dastardly deeds she is toast.
Isn't that something like tying weights to a suspected witch, tossing
her in a pond, and if she floats back up she's a witch?
Worked well enough in Salem, and you're just down the road after all.



Over the top, ridiculous comments (as usual). All I am saying is the
public has a right to hear answers to questions asked of anyone who
wants to be trusted with the office of POTUS. Those questions may
be uncomfortable from time to time. So far Hillary has demonstrated
an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and office.

She's a proven liar. When caught in one of her lies she basically
gives the public the royal finger.

If you want to support and elect someone like that as your next POTUS
have at it. Obviously you are "Ready for Hillary".



I'm surprised you're not chanting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi."

My feeling is this: whichever Democrat keeps the Republicans out of the
White House is fine with me. I don't have an "ideal" Democratic
candidate, beyond hoping that the candidate wins. The consequences of
having *any* of the frontrunner GOPers in the White House are too
horrific to contemplate.




I am not "anti-Hillary" because she's a Democrat. I am anti-Hillary
because she's Hillary. I can't for the life of me understand why
some people see her as presidential caliber. Too many skeletons in
her huge closet that she won't talk about ... and if she happens to
say something it's either an outright lie or very suspect.

May I suggest that you throw your support behind someone like Jim Webb
to run? He has the integrity and smarts for the job.



Harry says he will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what. He
isn't capable of rational discussion about politics. You are wasting
your breath.

--

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."