On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:44:58 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

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.

Well said.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On 4/22/2015 9:44 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
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.


Jim Webb *is* a Democrat ... or he was the last time he held office.

On 4/22/2015 11:47 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 9:44 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
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.


Jim Webb *is* a Democrat ... or he was the last time he held office.



What I meant was, Harry will vote for whomever the democratic party
trots out before the public. It currently looks like Madam Clinton
unless new polls suggest she's a loser.

--

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."

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/22/2015 9:44 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
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.


Jim Webb *is* a Democrat ... or he was the last time he held office.

Ignorance is FlaJim's only intellectual asset.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:47:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


Jim Webb *is* a Democrat ... or he was the last time he held office.

===

I don't know much about him but I'm guessing that he has too much
integrity.

On 4/22/15 11:26 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:44:58 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

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.

Well said.


Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay marriage; who
are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities;
who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of middle and
lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in
Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare and
Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate
change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose sensible
handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections
and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean water, et
cetera.

Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want
these days are that which are anti-societal.

On 4/22/2015 2:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/22/15 11:26 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:44:58 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

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.

Well said.



Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay marriage; who
are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities;
who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of middle and
lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in
Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare and
Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate
change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose sensible
handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections
and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean water, et
cetera.

Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want
these days are that which are anti-societal.

That's a pretty broad brush and highly partisan bunch of meaningless
words when you try to imply that *all* Republican candidates fall into
your list of qualifying criteria. For example, some have expressed
their *personal* views on subjects while qualifying that their personal
views do not and should not be reflected in a democratic legislative
process. In everything there must be a balance. The pendulum has swung
to it's liberal extreme and it's time now for some correction.

On 4/22/15 3:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/22/2015 2:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/22/15 11:26 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:44:58 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

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.

Well said.



Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay marriage; who
are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities;
who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of middle and
lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in
Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare and
Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate
change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose sensible
handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections
and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean water, et
cetera.

Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want
these days are that which are anti-societal.

That's a pretty broad brush and highly partisan bunch of meaningless
words when you try to imply that *all* Republican candidates fall into
your list of qualifying criteria. For example, some have expressed
their *personal* views on subjects while qualifying that their personal
views do not and should not be reflected in a democratic legislative
process. In everything there must be a balance. The pendulum has swung
to it's liberal extreme and it's time now for some correction.





No, it isn't a broad brush at all. Virtually all the GOPers fall into
all the "categories" I mentioned. Some may fall out of one or two, but
for the most part, the list aptly describes them. Randal Paul, for
example, claims he is for decriminalizing pot. Good for him. But, more
important, he is against the ACA, women's rights, gay rights, safety
rules. **** Randal. Rafael Cruz is a bomb thrower. **** him. Bush is a
neocon retred. **** Bush. Christie is a short-tempered asshole and
probably close to being a felon. **** him. Walker is a Koched-up bomber.
**** him. Bolton is crazy. **** him.

Got anyone good?


Oh, and I don't see that the pendulum has swung to a liberal extreme. In
most but not all of what is important, this country is moving backwards,
and the righties want to take away what little progress has been made.

In article ,
says...

On 4/22/2015 2:23 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

Indeed, I don't vote for candidates who are opposed to gay marriage; who
are enemies of blacks, latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities;
who want more tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of middle and
lower income wage earners; who are anti-abortion; who believe in
Creationism but not evolution; who are opposed to the ACA, Medicare and
Medicaid; who deny mankind is a major contributor to negative climate
change; who think capital is worth more than labor; who oppose sensible
handgun control, and who want to get rid of environmental protections
and safeguards over prescriptions, food, worker safety, clean water, et
cetera.

Unfortunately, *all* Republican presidential candidates seem to want
these days are that which are anti-societal.

That's a pretty broad brush and highly partisan bunch of meaningless
words when you try to imply that *all* Republican candidates fall into
your list of qualifying criteria. For example, some have expressed
their *personal* views on subjects while qualifying that their personal
views do not and should not be reflected in a democratic legislative
process. In everything there must be a balance. The pendulum has swung
to it's liberal extreme and it's time now for some correction.

Personal beliefs have a way of finding themselves represented on SCOTUS.
"Liberal extreme." Just what is that, in your opinion?
The ACA? Here to stay in its essence. It should go single-payer.
Gay marriage? Hasn't been decided. But it will be.
Just what are your "liberal extremes?"
Do you want prayer in school?
A continued Cuba embargo?
Not enough wars for you? Or too many?
Are you against the "War on Christmas?"

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:33:04 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:

No, it isn't a broad brush at all. Virtually all the GOPers fall into
all the "categories" I mentioned. Some may fall out of one or two, but
for the most part, the list aptly describes them. Randal Paul, for
example, claims he is for decriminalizing pot. Good for him. But, more
important, he is against the ACA, women's rights, gay rights, safety
rules. **** Randal. Rafael Cruz is a bomb thrower. **** him. Bush is a
neocon retred. **** Bush. Christie is a short-tempered asshole and
probably close to being a felon. **** him. Walker is a Koched-up bomber.
**** him. Bolton is crazy. **** him.

Ahh, the slammy in him surfaces. His "vacation" in rehab didn't set well, eh?