Oooops ....
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:45 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 7:29 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that
famous Clintonesque way.


Trustworthy? What a joke.

Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the
GOP
nomination.



No question that some of the GOP candidates are making some very stupid
statements that most, including me, would never agree with.

But we are discussing "trustworthiness". I can't think of a single
thing Hillary has ever said or done that would give me a feeling that
she is a truthful, honest and trustworthy person.

The polls on the subject appear to back up my opinion.




As I said, whatever your opinion of her, she is more trustworthy than
the GOP mooks hoping to run against her.


There are no facts to back that up. There are more truths to refute it
but you have your blinders on, as always.

Oooops ....
 

On 7/27/15 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:41:12 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



Jim Webb...who? (Yeah, I know who he is. He's a "who is he?"

He is sort of like that skinny black kid from Chicago at this point in
the 2008 race, except he actually has credentials.


Uh, no.

Oooops ....
 

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that
famous Clintonesque way.

This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving
classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email
anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified
at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent
any classified emails period.

Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that
indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely
classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to
being compromised.

She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now
alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified".

When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for
inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she
was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest.

Trustworthy? What a joke.

She killed Vince Foster too. Got away with it.
While she was running drugs from South America.
There's no limit to her evil doings.


Peace, Kevin.

Oooops ....
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 8:11 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that
famous Clintonesque way.

This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving
classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email
anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified
at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent
any classified emails period.

Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that
indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely
classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to
being compromised.

She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now
alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become
classified".

When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for
inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she
was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest.

Trustworthy? What a joke.


She killed Vince Foster too. Got away with it.
While she was running drugs from South America.
There's no limit to her evil doings.



I think the never-ending criticism of Mrs. Clinton is little more than
desperation on the part of Republicans. That party has an incredible
collection of loudmouths, losers, racists, morons, religious nutcases,
ethnic haters, woman haters, civil rights haters, and whoever gets
that party's nomination is going to be carrying more baggage than
AMTRAK. Individually, none of them has been getting the attention so
richly deserved.


If her record belonged to any republican candidate you would be all over
it. You are so transparent.

Hillary Clinton, trustworthy, NOT.

Oooops ....
 

On 7/28/15 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:05:15 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



If you are claiming Jim Webb is charismatic, your connection to reality
was severed long ago.

I am not sure we have actually seen that much of Webb.


As for Mrs. Clinton, she has tens of millions of dedicated followers. By
definition, she is charismatic.

She has a large name recognition factor and coattails from her hubby.
If she was still Hillary Roddam, nobody would give her a second
glance.
Her credentials are as a neocon senator who was for the Iraq war and
as a failed SoS who left the US is worse shape than it was when she
got there.

When the campaign finally gets down to looking at her record, she will
be a solid 47% candidate. The only way she can win is if the GOP vote
splits and that is what you keep saying here about Trump.



Really? I don't see any of the GOPer wannabes beating her in a general
election, especially Foot-in-Mouth Jeb. And, hey, if the Trumpster makes
an Indy run, more power to him. He'd pull 10% of the vote, at least, and
95% of that would be GOPer voters. Result? Hillary wins in a landslide.
Works for me.

Oooops ....
 

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:57:38 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:26:17 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Mrs. Clinton has a lot of charm and appeals to vast numbers of
Americans. By the dictionary definition of non-religious charisma, she
is charismatic.


She reminds me of one of those old Mary Kay reps who is still trying
to get her pink Cadillac but never quite made it.

That's funny! By the definition above your statement, Hitler was charismatic.

Hillary, charm? As charming as a snarling warthog.

Oooops ....
 

On 7/28/2015 11:45 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/28/15 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:05:15 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



If you are claiming Jim Webb is charismatic, your connection to reality
was severed long ago.

I am not sure we have actually seen that much of Webb.


As for Mrs. Clinton, she has tens of millions of dedicated followers. By
definition, she is charismatic.

She has a large name recognition factor and coattails from her hubby.
If she was still Hillary Roddam, nobody would give her a second
glance.
Her credentials are as a neocon senator who was for the Iraq war and
as a failed SoS who left the US is worse shape than it was when she
got there.

When the campaign finally gets down to looking at her record, she will
be a solid 47% candidate. The only way she can win is if the GOP vote
splits and that is what you keep saying here about Trump.



Really? I don't see any of the GOPer wannabes beating her in a general
election, especially Foot-in-Mouth Jeb. And, hey, if the Trumpster makes
an Indy run, more power to him. He'd pull 10% of the vote, at least, and
95% of that would be GOPer voters. Result? Hillary wins in a landslide.
Works for me.

Why would you want a character like Hillery as your president?

--

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."

Oooops ....
 

On 7/28/2015 11:45 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/28/15 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:05:15 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



If you are claiming Jim Webb is charismatic, your connection to reality
was severed long ago.

I am not sure we have actually seen that much of Webb.


As for Mrs. Clinton, she has tens of millions of dedicated followers. By
definition, she is charismatic.

She has a large name recognition factor and coattails from her hubby.
If she was still Hillary Roddam, nobody would give her a second
glance.
Her credentials are as a neocon senator who was for the Iraq war and
as a failed SoS who left the US is worse shape than it was when she
got there.

When the campaign finally gets down to looking at her record, she will
be a solid 47% candidate. The only way she can win is if the GOP vote
splits and that is what you keep saying here about Trump.



Really? I don't see any of the GOPer wannabes beating her in a general
election, especially Foot-in-Mouth Jeb. And, hey, if the Trumpster makes
an Indy run, more power to him. He'd pull 10% of the vote, at least, and
95% of that would be GOPer voters. Result? Hillary wins in a landslide.
Works for me.

You don't see much of anything with that melon head of yours stuck up
the donkey's ass.

--

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."

Oooops ....
 

On 7/28/2015 10:05 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:


As for Mrs. Clinton, she has tens of millions of dedicated followers.


So do Lemmings.

Jim Webb is not without his flaws although I don't find them
particularly negative. He's serious, can exhibit a bit of a temper
and doesn't kowtow to anyone.

He's a Democrat but has an independent streak in him. He doesn't
necessarily follow the "party line" if it's something he doesn't believe in.

I like that.