Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #99445 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-03 15:45 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-08 17:22 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 374 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-03 15:45 -0800
Wrong group... (was Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-03 16:48 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-04 03:20 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-03 23:12 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-04 06:18 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 03:58 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-04 09:26 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-04 16:05 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-04 16:04 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-04 18:30 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-04 17:48 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-04 18:59 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-04 18:16 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-04 20:03 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-04 15:31 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-04 17:50 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-05 08:40 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-04 11:11 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-04 12:30 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-04 12:37 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-04 13:31 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-04 17:06 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-04 16:33 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-04 20:00 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-04 17:06 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-04 18:14 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:32 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-04 18:38 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:47 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-04 19:06 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:18 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:17 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:19 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:11 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-05 16:43 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-05 09:51 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:20 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:18 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:16 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-05 16:48 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-05 13:12 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-05 13:29 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:29 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 18:40 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:30 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:30 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:31 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-08 23:32 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:32 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:31 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:32 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:21 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:09 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:11 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:21 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-10 11:30 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-10 12:05 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 16:59 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 03:25 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 02:00 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-13 12:23 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 17:49 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-14 10:11 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-05 13:30 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:34 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 18:39 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-07 19:57 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:33 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:36 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:33 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:11 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 14:52 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 23:00 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 20:02 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-09 10:05 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:34 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:32 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:36 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:13 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-05 21:42 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 18:39 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:34 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:09 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:12 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> - 2017-02-04 12:18 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-04 13:21 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-04 13:30 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-04 17:06 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-04 16:32 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:19 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:38 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 18:38 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 13:46 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 11:54 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 14:18 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 12:54 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:38 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:46 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:37 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-08 19:05 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-08 20:08 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:14 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-09 09:55 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:36 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-08 11:23 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:35 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:35 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:09 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-09 17:09 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-04 17:51 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-05 01:44 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-05 08:39 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-05 16:52 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:10 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-06 14:14 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-04 12:52 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> - 2017-02-04 12:20 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:20 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-02-04 18:02 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-02-05 06:12 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-05 22:06 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-04 16:19 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-05 00:32 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-05 16:51 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-05 17:21 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-06 09:55 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-06 21:10 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 10:20 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-07 17:58 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-07 18:35 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-08 22:53 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-08 20:57 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:22 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-09 08:41 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-06 14:17 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-08 23:40 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-09 10:11 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-16 01:35 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-16 12:00 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-16 08:05 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-16 16:23 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-16 12:27 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-16 15:32 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-16 12:38 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-16 15:42 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-16 12:44 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-16 21:51 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-16 16:15 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-16 13:33 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-17 14:38 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-17 12:01 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-17 10:02 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 19:08 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-17 01:25 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Fred Moore <fmoore@gfcn.huh> - 2017-02-17 14:54 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-18 11:58 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-20 11:41 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-20 11:40 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 14:09 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-21 10:24 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-21 15:36 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-22 07:01 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 19:05 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-16 23:19 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-16 22:50 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 06:35 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 06:36 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 06:45 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-17 16:50 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-18 11:15 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:31 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-18 22:27 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-18 15:23 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 01:49 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-19 19:05 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-19 09:30 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-19 22:18 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-19 14:08 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-19 16:55 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-20 10:37 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 06:22 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-20 10:16 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 16:28 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 17:56 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 17:16 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 19:01 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 18:08 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-20 18:41 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 19:53 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 19:37 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 20:57 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 20:23 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-20 18:42 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 19:49 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 19:34 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 20:54 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 20:23 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 20:25 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 21:41 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 21:27 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 20:40 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 21:45 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 17:45 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-20 15:46 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-21 07:00 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-20 22:09 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-21 06:19 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-21 07:50 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-21 15:32 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-21 07:49 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-21 15:33 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-21 07:50 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-21 16:04 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-21 19:07 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-21 19:46 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-21 21:00 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 17:44 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-21 15:42 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 18:00 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-21 19:12 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 23:22 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-21 21:28 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Andre G. Isaak" <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2017-02-20 10:05 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-20 17:25 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-21 10:18 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-20 11:55 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-20 14:09 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-20 11:44 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-17 01:15 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-17 11:51 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:29 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-17 09:56 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-17 01:36 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-16 16:38 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-17 11:57 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-17 02:03 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-17 17:42 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-16 20:09 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 06:40 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-17 16:48 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:30 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 19:02 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 20:46 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-05 16:28 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> - 2017-02-05 10:41 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-05 16:51 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-05 13:32 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... ElfinArc <elfinarc6@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 15:05 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:40 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-07 16:41 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-07 18:21 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> - 2017-02-07 12:33 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-07 18:36 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-07 19:00 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-07 21:31 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-07 21:47 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-07 21:55 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-07 22:12 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-07 16:11 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-07 16:11 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 10:33 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 10:31 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-08 09:07 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-08 14:51 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 10:26 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-08 09:06 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-08 14:45 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 10:24 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-07 16:40 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 14:47 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 13:46 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-09 09:55 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:21 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:21 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:31 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:19 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:08 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:22 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:28 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:27 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:26 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-08 09:02 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 09:10 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-08 16:35 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 09:52 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... android <here@there.was> - 2017-02-08 18:25 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... ElfinArc <elfinarc6@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 20:02 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 14:44 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-07 18:06 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-08 00:17 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-07 18:30 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-07 18:34 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 21:25 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-07 19:51 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 13:46 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 11:48 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 14:18 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 12:55 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:25 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:37 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:24 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:38 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:28 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:19 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:24 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:39 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:30 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 21:18 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-09 13:58 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:50 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-10 08:59 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-09 09:25 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 18:08 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-09 16:53 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-08 09:10 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... ElfinArc <elfinarc6@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 20:02 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-08 23:43 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-02-08 16:48 -0700
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-07 18:55 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 18:21 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-02-07 18:38 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 23:00 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-08 14:49 +1100
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:28 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:29 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-05 17:46 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-05 13:21 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jim Gibson <JimSGibson@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 15:50 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-05 17:30 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-06 09:57 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-06 21:13 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-04 18:52 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-04 18:15 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-04 21:15 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-04 22:15 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-05 16:22 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-05 16:38 +0000
Re: OT: "Every American"... JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-02-05 01:52 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-05 16:55 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-04 16:15 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> - 2017-02-04 17:45 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-05 17:49 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-04 18:10 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-05 17:53 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-04 20:24 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-04 21:34 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-04 22:53 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-02-05 17:01 +0100
Re: OT: "Every American"... Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> - 2017-02-05 10:39 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:14 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:55 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-02-06 19:35 -0800
Re: OT: "Every American"... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:41 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2017-02-05 18:01 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 06:23 -0500
Re: OT: "Every American"... "Ed H." <phoney@bogus.com> - 2017-02-08 11:02 -0600
Re: OT: "Every American"... Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-02-08 17:22 +0000
Page 16 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 Next page →
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 18:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrno9ko8t.esd.timmcn@sugaree.local> |
| In reply to | #99763 |
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:33:18 -0600, Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> wrote: > On 2017-02-07 18:21:33 +0000, Tim Streater said: > >> In article <efubmaFtkq5U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger >> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2017-02-07, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2017-02-05 11:51:21 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> >>>> said: >>>> >>>>> On 2017-02-05, Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The party of the people, Democarts, ignored all people not in big >>>>>> cities and have been taking positions well to the left of people >>>>>> not in those cities for a lot of years. IOW, they have been out >>>>>> of touch with what used to be their base. >>>>> >>>>> For very many Americans, *neither* party represents their needs >>>>> sufficiently. >>>> >>>> Sure... but one of those parties sure as hell is actively working >>>> to make the average American get by with a whole lot less. >>> >>> Members of *both* parties are responsible for where we are today. >>> And until American citizens wake up to that fact and elect >>> politicians who represent citizens rather than one of the two >>> established parties, nothing will change significantly. >> >> They did wake up to it and elected Trump. > > the majority didn't. They voted for Clinton. > > In an election that was most notable by having the two worst > candidates in modern history, many made the choice to the unknown. Or > maybe it was thought that a delusional nutjob was just what we needed. I disagree that both candidates were terrible. Clinton is not especially good at schmoozy populist campaigning, but I think her high negatives were mainly the result of a tireless coordinated smear campaign that ran for decades (and not helped by her association with Bill- while he is a great campaigner, his personal ethics and morals are atrocious). Trump is utterly unqualified to be President, as he tirelessly demonstrated during the campaign, the transition and now that he's in office; Clinton was extremely well qualified. It is a deep loss to America that Trump is in the White House and she is not, one that may take decades to recover from.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 00:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <efv6d5F44s4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #99794 |
On 2017-02-08, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:33:18 -0600, Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> > wrote: >> On 2017-02-07 18:21:33 +0000, Tim Streater said: >> >>> In article <efubmaFtkq5U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger >>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2017-02-07, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2017-02-05 11:51:21 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> >>>>> said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-02-05, Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The party of the people, Democarts, ignored all people not in big >>>>>>> cities and have been taking positions well to the left of people >>>>>>> not in those cities for a lot of years. IOW, they have been out >>>>>>> of touch with what used to be their base. >>>>>> >>>>>> For very many Americans, *neither* party represents their needs >>>>>> sufficiently. >>>>> >>>>> Sure... but one of those parties sure as hell is actively working >>>>> to make the average American get by with a whole lot less. >>>> >>>> Members of *both* parties are responsible for where we are today. >>>> And until American citizens wake up to that fact and elect >>>> politicians who represent citizens rather than one of the two >>>> established parties, nothing will change significantly. >>> >>> They did wake up to it and elected Trump. >> >> the majority didn't. They voted for Clinton. >> >> In an election that was most notable by having the two worst >> candidates in modern history, many made the choice to the unknown. Or >> maybe it was thought that a delusional nutjob was just what we needed. > > I disagree that both candidates were terrible. Clinton is not > especially good at schmoozy populist campaigning, but I think her high > negatives were mainly the result of a tireless coordinated smear > campaign Oh please. Clinton didn't lose the vote due some nefarious "smear campaign". Clinton's contradictory voting record, ties to special interests, and her own contradictory statements are viewed negatively by *many* Americans. And Trump is a man-child who is obviously unqualified for the position. Both were terrible candidates. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 18:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D4BFC2DC.8EF3C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #99795 |
On 2/7/17, 5:17 PM, in article efv6d5F44s4U1@mid.individual.net, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: ... >>> the majority didn't. They voted for Clinton. >>> >>> In an election that was most notable by having the two worst >>> candidates in modern history, many made the choice to the unknown. Or >>> maybe it was thought that a delusional nutjob was just what we needed. >> >> I disagree that both candidates were terrible. Clinton is not >> especially good at schmoozy populist campaigning, but I think her high >> negatives were mainly the result of a tireless coordinated smear >> campaign > > Oh please. Clinton didn't lose the vote due some nefarious "smear > campaign". Clinton's contradictory voting record, ties to special > interests, and her own contradictory statements are viewed negatively by > *many* Americans. Watch the NY debate she has with Sanders. Try to find ANY question she answered without obfuscation and the like. She is incapable of giving an honest answer. Yes, Trump is a massive liar, too. She is a better liar... but comes off as a used car salesperson. She is slimy. But even for people who disagree: poll after poll after poll showed she was not trusted or liked by the American people. She wanted power more than she wanted to stop Trump. And now look at the Clinton Foundation crumbling. Those that denied it was not about getting special treatment have massive egg on their faces. > And Trump is a man-child who is obviously unqualified for the position. > > Both were terrible candidates. Absolutely agree. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 21:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <070220172103436867%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #99798 |
In article <D4BFC2DC.8EF3C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > Oh please. Clinton didn't lose the vote due some nefarious "smear > > campaign". Clinton's contradictory voting record, ties to special > > interests, and her own contradictory statements are viewed negatively by > > *many* Americans. > > Watch the NY debate she has with Sanders. Try to find ANY question she > answered without obfuscation and the like. She is incapable of giving an > honest answer. just like every other politician.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D4BFC3B4.8EF3E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #99794 |
On 2/7/17, 5:06 PM, in article slrno9ko8t.esd.timmcn@sugaree.local, "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:33:18 -0600, Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> > wrote: >> On 2017-02-07 18:21:33 +0000, Tim Streater said: >> >>> In article <efubmaFtkq5U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger >>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2017-02-07, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2017-02-05 11:51:21 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> >>>>> said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-02-05, Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The party of the people, Democarts, ignored all people not in big >>>>>>> cities and have been taking positions well to the left of people >>>>>>> not in those cities for a lot of years. IOW, they have been out >>>>>>> of touch with what used to be their base. >>>>>> >>>>>> For very many Americans, *neither* party represents their needs >>>>>> sufficiently. >>>>> >>>>> Sure... but one of those parties sure as hell is actively working >>>>> to make the average American get by with a whole lot less. >>>> >>>> Members of *both* parties are responsible for where we are today. >>>> And until American citizens wake up to that fact and elect >>>> politicians who represent citizens rather than one of the two >>>> established parties, nothing will change significantly. >>> >>> They did wake up to it and elected Trump. >> >> the majority didn't. They voted for Clinton. >> >> In an election that was most notable by having the two worst >> candidates in modern history, many made the choice to the unknown. Or >> maybe it was thought that a delusional nutjob was just what we needed. > > I disagree that both candidates were terrible. Clinton is not > especially good at schmoozy populist campaigning, but I think her high > negatives were mainly the result of a tireless coordinated smear > campaign that ran for decades (and not helped by her association with > Bill- while he is a great campaigner, his personal ethics and morals are > atrocious). Watch the NY debate with Sanders. How many questions does she give a non-slimy, direct answer to? She is incapable of being honest. That got us Trump. > Trump is utterly unqualified to be President, as he > tirelessly demonstrated during the campaign, the transition and now that > he's in office; Agreed. But keep in mind the choices of Clinton and the DNC are a large part of what got us Trump in the White House. Her judgment in giving him the best -- if not only - change he had is enough to know she is not qualified either. And now, maybe, the Democrats will wake up a bit and actually be more of a party of the people and not a party of the wealthy. > Clinton was extremely well qualified. I disagree -- but, really, at this point it does not matter. We just have to push the DNC to STOP doing the things which helped Trump win. > It is a deep loss to America that Trump is in the White House and she is not, > one that may take decades to recover from. We would be in big trouble with either. At least now the backlash MIGHT be good. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 21:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7dvfh$1hf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99799 |
On 2017-02-07 20:34:28 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said: > On 2/7/17, 5:06 PM, in article slrno9ko8t.esd.timmcn@sugaree.local, "Tim > McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:33:18 -0600, Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> >> wrote: >>> On 2017-02-07 18:21:33 +0000, Tim Streater said: >>> >>>> In article <efubmaFtkq5U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger >>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2017-02-07, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2017-02-05 11:51:21 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> >>>>>> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-02-05, Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The party of the people, Democarts, ignored all people not in big >>>>>>>> cities and have been taking positions well to the left of people >>>>>>>> not in those cities for a lot of years. IOW, they have been out >>>>>>>> of touch with what used to be their base. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For very many Americans, *neither* party represents their needs >>>>>>> sufficiently. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure... but one of those parties sure as hell is actively working >>>>>> to make the average American get by with a whole lot less. >>>>> >>>>> Members of *both* parties are responsible for where we are today. >>>>> And until American citizens wake up to that fact and elect >>>>> politicians who represent citizens rather than one of the two >>>>> established parties, nothing will change significantly. >>>> >>>> They did wake up to it and elected Trump. >>> >>> the majority didn't. They voted for Clinton. >>> >>> In an election that was most notable by having the two worst >>> candidates in modern history, many made the choice to the unknown. Or >>> maybe it was thought that a delusional nutjob was just what we needed. >> >> I disagree that both candidates were terrible. Clinton is not >> especially good at schmoozy populist campaigning, but I think her high >> negatives were mainly the result of a tireless coordinated smear >> campaign that ran for decades (and not helped by her association with >> Bill- while he is a great campaigner, his personal ethics and morals are >> atrocious). > > Watch the NY debate with Sanders. How many questions does she give a > non-slimy, direct answer to? She is incapable of being honest. That got us > Trump. > >> Trump is utterly unqualified to be President, as he >> tirelessly demonstrated during the campaign, the transition and now that >> he's in office; > > Agreed. But keep in mind the choices of Clinton and the DNC are a large part > of what got us Trump in the White House. Her judgment in giving him the best > -- if not only - change he had is enough to know she is not qualified > either. > > And now, maybe, the Democrats will wake up a bit and actually be more of a > party of the people and not a party of the wealthy. > >> Clinton was extremely well qualified. > > I disagree -- but, really, at this point it does not matter. We just have to > push the DNC to STOP doing the things which helped Trump win. Yeah... it does matter. She was possibly the MOST qualified candidate to EVER run for the office. Period. That'a a quantifiable thing. You may not have liked her, or her policies, but that will never change the fact that she had qualifications in spades. Here are a few facts you might not know: Wellesley College, Senior Class President, graduated 1969. Yale Law School, graduated with honors 1973. Worked for Senator Mondale on Subcommittee on migrant workers 1971. Worked for Senator McGovern 1972. Member of Nixon Impeachment staff advising Judiciary Committee 1974. Faculty member University of AK Law School. Worked for Carter's presidential campaign and Bill's AG campaign. First Lady of Arkansas, for a dozen years. Rose Law Firm, Chairman of Legal Services Corporation. Chaired Arkansas Educational Standards Committee. Co-founded (NOT ISIS!!) Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. Served on the board of Arkansas Children's Hospital. Served on the board of Arkansas Legal Services and Children's Defense Fund. Served on the boards of TCBY and Wal-Mart. 1988 & 1991, named one of the most powerful lawyers in America by National Law Journal. First Lady of the United States. Elected United States Senator from New York - twice. Appointed United States Secretary of State. She's not just "a" qualified candidate, she was THE MOST qualified candidate. Arguably, ever. If you believe otherwise, show me a candidate with more, and I'll listen. As far as the DNC losing it's way... I agree 100% about that. Bernie never would have been elected, either... but he's done a good job showing us why Hillary lost. Well... that and the Russians who helped Trump at every turn, the FBI who broke it's own rules to take her down, and the Media that allowed Trumplethinskin to lie with impunity, all the while chasing some bombshell in Hillary's email that didn't exist, and NEVER existed. Oh... and she still managed to garner almost 3,000,000 MORE votes than the "so-called" President we have now. We elected a pathological liar of a madman because an old lady used work email at home. We're fucked. -- "Now Trump and his minions are in the driver’s seat, attempting to pose as respectable participants in American politics, when their views come out of a playbook written in German." -Ron Rosenbaum, Author of 'Explaining Hitler' https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-munich-post/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 19:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D4BFD5D5.8EF88%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #99816 |
On 2/7/17, 7:25 PM, in article o7dvfh$1hf$1@dont-email.me, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: ... >>> I disagree that both candidates were terrible. Clinton is not >>> especially good at schmoozy populist campaigning, but I think her high >>> negatives were mainly the result of a tireless coordinated smear >>> campaign that ran for decades (and not helped by her association with >>> Bill- while he is a great campaigner, his personal ethics and morals are >>> atrocious). >> >> Watch the NY debate with Sanders. How many questions does she give a >> non-slimy, direct answer to? She is incapable of being honest. That got us >> Trump. The above question was not rhetorical -- what question from that debate did Clinton actually give a straight answer to? You might find one but it would be hard! >>> Trump is utterly unqualified to be President, as he >>> tirelessly demonstrated during the campaign, the transition and now that >>> he's in office; >> >> Agreed. But keep in mind the choices of Clinton and the DNC are a large part >> of what got us Trump in the White House. Her judgment in giving him the best >> -- if not only - change he had is enough to know she is not qualified >> either. >> >> And now, maybe, the Democrats will wake up a bit and actually be more of a >> party of the people and not a party of the wealthy. >> >>> Clinton was extremely well qualified. >> >> I disagree -- but, really, at this point it does not matter. We just have to >> push the DNC to STOP doing the things which helped Trump win. > > Yeah... it does matter. She was possibly the MOST qualified candidate > to EVER run for the office. Period. We can debate her qualifications but you cannot change the fact she was one of the least liked, last trusted, least electable candidates possible. And she showed HORRIBLE judgment... to the point of making choices to allow Trump his only chance to get to the White House. > That'a a quantifiable thing. You may not have liked her, or her > policies, but that will never change the fact that she had > qualifications in spades. Again, you can think and even copy from a website... but can you list the questions from the NY debate with Sanders she answered? Hey, you can find a YouTube video and link to the time. But I bet you will not. > Here are a few facts you might not know: I have seen lists copied from the web. Not even quoting them... I mean, really, it lists her being a class president and the first lady (something she was not elected to) and serving on the board of Wal-Mart. So what? ... > She's not just "a" qualified candidate, she was THE MOST qualified > candidate. Arguably, ever. > If you believe otherwise, show me a candidate with more, and I'll listen. Sanders. Not tied nearly as much to big money, elected more times than she was, showed MUCH better judgment in almost every area, did not flip flop on issue after issue after issue just to get political points, did not have a foundation getting massive funding from foreign governments (which pulled out once she lost... all coincidental), did not have his campaign block people from voting, etc. > As far as the DNC losing it's way... I agree 100% about that. Bernie > never would have been elected, either... but he's done a good job > showing us why Hillary lost. We need an alternate universe to test for sure -- but all evidence suggest Sanders would have EASILY won. Pretty much every poll on electability and the more important ones on being liked and trusted (more important as in correlating more with winning). > Well... that and the Russians who helped Trump at every turn, the FBI > who broke it's own rules to take her down, and the Media that allowed > Trumplethinskin to lie with impunity, all the while chasing some > bombshell in Hillary's email that didn't exist, and NEVER existed. Why would you think these things do not matter? Clinton: * Mishandled sensitive information * Knew she mishandled sensitive information * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy" * Should have understood her actions were illegal * Responded to "suspicious emails" * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]" * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt" * Failed to follow internal policy * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure * Showed poor understanding of technology in general And Clinton lied... here are just some: * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine which were work related * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information marked classified (though such markings that existed were done incorrectly) * Claiming she never sent / received classified information * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act * Claiming that her server was secure * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry in such a way) * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured" * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation Additionally, Clinton: * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified information * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know) > Oh... and she still managed to garner almost 3,000,000 MORE votes than > the "so-called" President we have now. I do not like Trump but he is the president... not the "so-called" president. And he is the fault of Clinton and her supporters... at least in part. > We elected a pathological liar of a madman because an old lady used > work email at home. That is not correct. He was elected because the DNC did not pick someone who could beat even TRUMP. > We're fucked. On THAT we agree. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 13:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <080220171346213751%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #99822 |
In article <D4BFD5D5.8EF88%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > Clinton: > * Mishandled sensitive information > * Knew she mishandled sensitive information > * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy" > * Should have understood her actions were illegal > * Responded to "suspicious emails" > * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]" > * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt" > * Failed to follow internal policy > * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act > * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail > * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure > * Showed poor understanding of technology in general > > And Clinton lied... here are just some: > * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails > * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine > which were work related > * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information > marked classified (though such markings that existed were done > incorrectly) > * Claiming she never sent / received classified information > * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy > * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act > * Claiming that her server was secure > * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent > usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry > in such a way) > * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured" > * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so > * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them > * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation > * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation > > Additionally, Clinton: > * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified > information > * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information > * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know) very good list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D4C0B5FB.8F1A9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #99929 |
On 2/8/17, 11:46 AM, in article 080220171346213751%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <D4BFD5D5.8EF88%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> Clinton: >> * Mishandled sensitive information >> * Knew she mishandled sensitive information >> * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy" >> * Should have understood her actions were illegal >> * Responded to "suspicious emails" >> * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]" >> * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt" >> * Failed to follow internal policy >> * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act >> * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail >> * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure >> * Showed poor understanding of technology in general >> >> And Clinton lied... here are just some: >> * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails >> * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine >> which were work related >> * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information >> marked classified (though such markings that existed were done >> incorrectly) >> * Claiming she never sent / received classified information >> * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy >> * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act >> * Claiming that her server was secure >> * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent >> usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry >> in such a way) >> * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured" >> * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so >> * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them >> * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation >> * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation >> >> Additionally, Clinton: >> * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified >> information >> * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information >> * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know) > > very good list. Thank you. And, to be clear, it is NOT something I found online -- I watched all 4+ hours of the bloody thing and took notes. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 14:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <080220171418430294%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #99931 |
In article <D4C0B5FB.8F1A9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> Clinton: > >> * Mishandled sensitive information > >> * Knew she mishandled sensitive information > >> * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy" > >> * Should have understood her actions were illegal > >> * Responded to "suspicious emails" > >> * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]" > >> * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt" > >> * Failed to follow internal policy > >> * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act > >> * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail > >> * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure > >> * Showed poor understanding of technology in general > >> > >> And Clinton lied... here are just some: > >> * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails > >> * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine > >> which were work related > >> * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information > >> marked classified (though such markings that existed were done > >> incorrectly) > >> * Claiming she never sent / received classified information > >> * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy > >> * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act > >> * Claiming that her server was secure > >> * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent > >> usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry > >> in such a way) > >> * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured" > >> * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so > >> * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them > >> * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation > >> * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation > >> > >> Additionally, Clinton: > >> * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified > >> information > >> * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information > >> * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know) > > > > very good list. > > Thank you. And, to be clear, it is NOT something I found online -- I watched > all 4+ hours of the bloody thing and took notes. me too, although i did not take notes. i just kept noticing the many inconsistencies, which means she's lying. they're *her* words, straight from *her* mouth, not commentary from reporters, political analysts, etc. those who tell the truth don't continually contradict themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D4C0C5BA.8F1DF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #99940 |
On 2/8/17, 12:18 PM, in article 080220171418430294%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <D4C0B5FB.8F1A9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> Clinton: >>>> * Mishandled sensitive information >>>> * Knew she mishandled sensitive information >>>> * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy" >>>> * Should have understood her actions were illegal >>>> * Responded to "suspicious emails" >>>> * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]" >>>> * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt" >>>> * Failed to follow internal policy >>>> * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act >>>> * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail >>>> * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure >>>> * Showed poor understanding of technology in general >>>> >>>> And Clinton lied... here are just some: >>>> * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails >>>> * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine >>>> which were work related >>>> * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information >>>> marked classified (though such markings that existed were done >>>> incorrectly) >>>> * Claiming she never sent / received classified information >>>> * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy >>>> * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act >>>> * Claiming that her server was secure >>>> * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent >>>> usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry >>>> in such a way) >>>> * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured" >>>> * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so >>>> * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them >>>> * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation >>>> * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation >>>> >>>> Additionally, Clinton: >>>> * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified >>>> information >>>> * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information >>>> * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know) >>> >>> very good list. >> >> Thank you. And, to be clear, it is NOT something I found online -- I watched >> all 4+ hours of the bloody thing and took notes. > > me too, although i did not take notes. i just kept noticing the many > inconsistencies, which means she's lying. > > they're *her* words, straight from *her* mouth, not commentary from > reporters, political analysts, etc. > > those who tell the truth don't continually contradict themselves. Correct. I mean not correct. Damn! :) She is as dishonest as Trump but she is a better liar -- often doing so with distraction and innuendo. She is a trained lawyer and it shows. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 18:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7g9ab$gtt$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99931 |
On 2017-02-08 13:48:11 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said: > On 2/8/17, 11:46 AM, in article 080220171346213751%nospam@nospam.invalid, > "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <D4BFD5D5.8EF88%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Clinton: >>> * Mishandled sensitive information >>> * Knew she mishandled sensitive information >>> * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy" >>> * Should have understood her actions were illegal >>> * Responded to "suspicious emails" >>> * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]" >>> * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt" >>> * Failed to follow internal policy >>> * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act >>> * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail >>> * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure >>> * Showed poor understanding of technology in general >>> >>> And Clinton lied... here are just some: >>> * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails >>> * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine >>> which were work related >>> * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information >>> marked classified (though such markings that existed were done >>> incorrectly) >>> * Claiming she never sent / received classified information >>> * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy >>> * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act >>> * Claiming that her server was secure >>> * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent >>> usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry >>> in such a way) >>> * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured" >>> * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so >>> * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them >>> * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation >>> * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation >>> >>> Additionally, Clinton: >>> * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified >>> information >>> * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information >>> * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know) >> >> very good list. > > Thank you. And, to be clear, it is NOT something I found online -- I watched > all 4+ hours of the bloody thing and took notes. Yes... "Showed poor understanding of technology in general" was THE killer! -- "Now Trump and his minions are in the driver’s seat, attempting to pose as respectable participants in American politics, when their views come out of a playbook written in German." -Ron Rosenbaum, Author of 'Explaining Hitler' https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-munich-post/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D4C0F9BE.8F257%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #99986 |
On 2/8/17, 4:25 PM, in article o7g9ab$gtt$6@dont-email.me, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2017-02-08 13:48:11 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said: > >> On 2/8/17, 11:46 AM, in article 080220171346213751%nospam@nospam.invalid, >> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In article <D4BFD5D5.8EF88%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Clinton: >>>> * Mishandled sensitive information >>>> * Knew she mishandled sensitive information >>>> * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy" >>>> * Should have understood her actions were illegal >>>> * Responded to "suspicious emails" >>>> * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]" >>>> * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt" >>>> * Failed to follow internal policy >>>> * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act >>>> * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail >>>> * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure >>>> * Showed poor understanding of technology in general >>>> >>>> And Clinton lied... here are just some: >>>> * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails >>>> * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine >>>> which were work related >>>> * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information >>>> marked classified (though such markings that existed were done >>>> incorrectly) >>>> * Claiming she never sent / received classified information >>>> * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy >>>> * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act >>>> * Claiming that her server was secure >>>> * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent >>>> usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry >>>> in such a way) >>>> * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured" >>>> * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so >>>> * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them >>>> * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation >>>> * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation >>>> >>>> Additionally, Clinton: >>>> * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified >>>> information >>>> * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information >>>> * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know) >>> >>> very good list. >> >> Thank you. And, to be clear, it is NOT something I found online -- I watched >> all 4+ hours of the bloody thing and took notes. > > Yes... "Showed poor understanding of technology in general" was THE killer! It is bothersome that the leader of the free world would not, but I would not say that was the worst of her weaknesses. Her lack of morality is higher on my list. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 18:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7g98b$gtt$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99929 |
On 2017-02-08 13:46:21 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said: > In article <D4BFD5D5.8EF88%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> Clinton: >> * Mishandled sensitive information >> * Knew she mishandled sensitive information >> * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy" >> * Should have understood her actions were illegal >> * Responded to "suspicious emails" >> * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]" >> * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt" >> * Failed to follow internal policy >> * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act >> * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail >> * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure >> * Showed poor understanding of technology in general >> >> And Clinton lied... here are just some: >> * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails >> * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine >> which were work related >> * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information >> marked classified (though such markings that existed were done >> incorrectly) >> * Claiming she never sent / received classified information >> * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy >> * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act >> * Claiming that her server was secure >> * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent >> usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry >> in such a way) >> * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured" >> * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so >> * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them >> * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation >> * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation >> >> Additionally, Clinton: >> * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified >> information >> * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information >> * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know) > > > very good list. I prefer to read non-fiction... -- "Now Trump and his minions are in the driver’s seat, attempting to pose as respectable participants in American politics, when their views come out of a playbook written in German." -Ron Rosenbaum, Author of 'Explaining Hitler' https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-munich-post/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 16:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D4C0FA03.8F259%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #99985 |
On 2/8/17, 4:24 PM, in article o7g98b$gtt$5@dont-email.me, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2017-02-08 13:46:21 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said: > >> In article <D4BFD5D5.8EF88%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Clinton: >>> * Mishandled sensitive information >>> * Knew she mishandled sensitive information >>> * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy" >>> * Should have understood her actions were illegal >>> * Responded to "suspicious emails" >>> * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]" >>> * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt" >>> * Failed to follow internal policy >>> * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act >>> * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail >>> * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure >>> * Showed poor understanding of technology in general >>> >>> And Clinton lied... here are just some: >>> * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails >>> * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine >>> which were work related >>> * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information >>> marked classified (though such markings that existed were done >>> incorrectly) >>> * Claiming she never sent / received classified information >>> * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy >>> * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act >>> * Claiming that her server was secure >>> * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent >>> usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry >>> in such a way) >>> * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured" >>> * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so >>> * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them >>> * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation >>> * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation >>> >>> Additionally, Clinton: >>> * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified >>> information >>> * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information >>> * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know) >> >> >> very good list. > > I prefer to read non-fiction... So you reject what Comey says. What do you accept as evidence? Here, just a bit more for you to look at (much of it sourced, but this is, again, my own list -- not one I found online). It is not as though I did not pay attention! Just a small sampling of where Clinton has been deceptive or lied. * Her emails: she repeatedly claims she merely did what others have done but has yet to name even one other who had a private email server installed in their house. NO examples of someone truly doing as she did. She could argue that this allowed her to make the email more private and try to turn it into a positive, but her dishonesty on this at least makes it seem she has something to hide - perhaps emails that should be public that she does not want others to see. She also committed perjury and said she released all emails when she had not (and later admitted to) and of the deleted emails she said many went to her husband who publicly says he does not use email! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/14/state-dept-cites-gaps-hillar y-clinton-email-record/?page=all https://youtu.be/T0Xtv1QMzy0 https://youtu.be/jzA-NEmAQaQ?t=8m40s * Her speeches: She refuses to release them. Why not? She gives the impression that either the speeches have info in them that she does not want out or that they are mundane enough to make it so the payments for them were payoffs. Either way she looks bad. She again refuses to be open. Oh, and she lies about them time and time again: https://www.facebook.com/itstheGADFLY/videos/1141125379240531/ * She argues against the fact that she is the establishment candidate. She is - if there was any question the super delegate (establishment) votes prove it. Instead of being honest and speaking about how this can be an advantage she lies and denies. Why not instead speak about how she and Sanders want many of there same things but as the establishment candidate she has more connections and more influence and will be able to get more done. She COULD be (mostly) honest and point out the benefits (showing the good side is what we all do in an interview... I get that). * She claims to not want to speak of the 1990s, whining often when Sanders brings the time up. She, however, repeatedly brings up the 1990s. This happens time and time again in the debates. More than that, when you run for president it is completely predictable that your past record will be asked about... to complain about people doing so is immature and silly. She at least comes across as having something to hide and deflecting. * She feels the need to repeatedly twist Sanders' record. The Washington Post goes into some detail here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/5-times-hillary-cl inton-has-played-fast-and-loose-with-the-facts-on-bernie-sanderss-record. She makes things up about or twists Sanders' record on immigration, the auto bailout, the Minutemen, the Koch brothers, his work with bank regulation, and more. At the very least this indicates she is afraid of his growing popularity and is playing dirty to try to win the candidacy. She shows she does not think she can stand on her own record. * Her answer about fracking was wordy and never really answered the question (a common theme with her, really). Mother Jones has an article about a likely reason why: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shal e-state-department-chevron If she thinks fracking should be used why does she not just say she is for it (and then can add that she wants to make sure it is well regulated). Why the deception and double talk from her? * Her comments on immigration were anything but clear, too. More on that from the New York Post: http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/immigration-experts-have-no-idea-what-hillary-i s-talking-about/ She repeatedly talks in circles and does not give clear answers. * Her comments about health care. When Sanders speaks of healthcare for all she says it would cost too much... but then in the next moment she says she wants to expand ObamaCare so that it covers healthcare for all (not just 90%). She cannot just give a clear answer. * Lying about not knowing where Sanders was as she pushed for better health care. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272790-sanders-spokes person-fires-back-at-clinton-for-healthcare * On her own voting record she is just as unclear. The Onion had fun with this fact with this article: http://www.theonion.com/article/clinton-throws-flash-grenade-divert-attentio n-ques-52499 Clearly that is satire, but the point it makes is serious - she repeatedly gives non-answers to questions. * Repeatedly it seems like after breaks she has stronger answers to questions. I (and others) have hypothesized that she is getting assistance from her advisers. Now there seems to be direct evidence to back this up: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sanders-campaign-says-this-photo-proves-clinton-b roke-rules-during-univision-debate/ She at least seems to be unable to play by the rules. * She backs supporters of hers even when they act badly - in one example going so far as to play the sexist card claiming that there is a special place in hell for women who back Sanders. * Her husband at the very least skirts campaign laws by even hanging around polling places and blocking people in strong Sanders areas from voting: http://mediaite.com/a/vkkzf and http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-laws-massachusetts/ * Her husband also sinks to saying Sanders' supporters, who back his fight for greater equality, are just as bad as Trump supporters who fight heavily against equality. * Lying about the Reagan's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. I will grant and commend her for retracting this praise... and as such can see it as more of a mistake than a lie. I leave it on this list because I previously noted the inaccuracy of her claim. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/11/hillary-clin ton-apologizes-for-praising-nancy-reagans-response-to-hivaids/ * Lying about where her funding comes from and trying to sounds like she is similar to Sanders in this. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-claim-small-donors-mostly-false-politifac t-finds * Her lie about avoiding a New York debate because of Sanders' tone when everyone know it is because she fears it will harm her chances of winning the state. In the past she has directly said "You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere.": https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/1016591345062536/ * She lied when Sanders noted her money from the oil industry. Worse than that, she lost her temper over it... even though she used the SAME attack against Obama when she was running against him. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/politics/hillary-clinton-oil-gas-donations-oba ma/ and her ad against Obama: https://youtu.be/3satJnoBXi8 She refuses to sign the agreement Sanders did to NOT take oil money, maybe because she has had massive amounts of oil money flow into the Clinton Foundation: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/09/oil-money-flowed-clinton-turned- back-rights-abuses-colombia-report * Her fighting against Sanders for the $15 / hour minimum wage and then in New York working with the people fighting for it pretending she was backing it the whole time and is with them on their fight. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-clinton-minimum-wage-20160404-s tory.html -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 21:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7gk11$dvr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100002 |
On 2017-02-08 18:38:27 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said: > So you reject what Comey says Comey has proven what he is, and everybody knows it. -- "I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it. Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies! -2017 "WAR IS PEACE." "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY." "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!" -1984 Eric Arthur Blair
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 21:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D4C13BD3.8F307%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #100036 |
On 2/8/17, 7:28 PM, in article o7gk11$dvr$2@dont-email.me, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2017-02-08 18:38:27 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said: > >> So you reject what Comey says > > Comey has proven what he is, and everybody knows it. So you reject what he head of the FBI says. What do you count as evidence? Any of this? If not I think we can say with certainty that you are amazingly biased for Clinton and NO evidence will be of any use in changing that bias. Just a small sampling of where Clinton has been deceptive or lied. * Her emails: she repeatedly claims she merely did what others have done but has yet to name even one other who had a private email server installed in their house. NO examples of someone truly doing as she did. She could argue that this allowed her to make the email more private and try to turn it into a positive, but her dishonesty on this at least makes it seem she has something to hide - perhaps emails that should be public that she does not want others to see. She also committed perjury and said she released all emails when she had not (and later admitted to) and of the deleted emails she said many went to her husband who publicly says he does not use email! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/14/state-dept-cites-gaps-hillar y-clinton-email-record/?page=all https://youtu.be/T0Xtv1QMzy0 https://youtu.be/jzA-NEmAQaQ?t=8m40s * Her speeches: She refuses to release them. Why not? She gives the impression that either the speeches have info in them that she does not want out or that they are mundane enough to make it so the payments for them were payoffs. Either way she looks bad. She again refuses to be open. Oh, and she lies about them time and time again: https://www.facebook.com/itstheGADFLY/videos/1141125379240531/ * She argues against the fact that she is the establishment candidate. She is - if there was any question the super delegate (establishment) votes prove it. Instead of being honest and speaking about how this can be an advantage she lies and denies. Why not instead speak about how she and Sanders want many of there same things but as the establishment candidate she has more connections and more influence and will be able to get more done. She COULD be (mostly) honest and point out the benefits (showing the good side is what we all do in an interview... I get that). * She claims to not want to speak of the 1990s, whining often when Sanders brings the time up. She, however, repeatedly brings up the 1990s. This happens time and time again in the debates. More than that, when you run for president it is completely predictable that your past record will be asked about... to complain about people doing so is immature and silly. She at least comes across as having something to hide and deflecting. * She feels the need to repeatedly twist Sanders' record. The Washington Post goes into some detail here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/5-times-hillary-cl inton-has-played-fast-and-loose-with-the-facts-on-bernie-sanderss-record. She makes things up about or twists Sanders' record on immigration, the auto bailout, the Minutemen, the Koch brothers, his work with bank regulation, and more. At the very least this indicates she is afraid of his growing popularity and is playing dirty to try to win the candidacy. She shows she does not think she can stand on her own record. * Her answer about fracking was wordy and never really answered the question (a common theme with her, really). Mother Jones has an article about a likely reason why: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shal e-state-department-chevron If she thinks fracking should be used why does she not just say she is for it (and then can add that she wants to make sure it is well regulated). Why the deception and double talk from her? * Her comments on immigration were anything but clear, too. More on that from the New York Post: http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/immigration-experts-have-no-idea-what-hillary-i s-talking-about/ She repeatedly talks in circles and does not give clear answers. * Her comments about health care. When Sanders speaks of healthcare for all she says it would cost too much... but then in the next moment she says she wants to expand ObamaCare so that it covers healthcare for all (not just 90%). She cannot just give a clear answer. * Lying about not knowing where Sanders was as she pushed for better health care. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272790-sanders-spokes person-fires-back-at-clinton-for-healthcare * On her own voting record she is just as unclear. The Onion had fun with this fact with this article: http://www.theonion.com/article/clinton-throws-flash-grenade-divert-attentio n-ques-52499 Clearly that is satire, but the point it makes is serious - she repeatedly gives non-answers to questions. * Repeatedly it seems like after breaks she has stronger answers to questions. I (and others) have hypothesized that she is getting assistance from her advisers. Now there seems to be direct evidence to back this up: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sanders-campaign-says-this-photo-proves-clinton-b roke-rules-during-univision-debate/ She at least seems to be unable to play by the rules. * She backs supporters of hers even when they act badly - in one example going so far as to play the sexist card claiming that there is a special place in hell for women who back Sanders. * Her husband at the very least skirts campaign laws by even hanging around polling places and blocking people in strong Sanders areas from voting: http://mediaite.com/a/vkkzf and http://www.snopes.com/clinton-campaign-laws-massachusetts/ * Her husband also sinks to saying Sanders' supporters, who back his fight for greater equality, are just as bad as Trump supporters who fight heavily against equality. * Lying about the Reagan's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. I will grant and commend her for retracting this praise... and as such can see it as more of a mistake than a lie. I leave it on this list because I previously noted the inaccuracy of her claim. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/11/hillary-clin ton-apologizes-for-praising-nancy-reagans-response-to-hivaids/ * Lying about where her funding comes from and trying to sounds like she is similar to Sanders in this. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-claim-small-donors-mostly-false-politifac t-finds * Her lie about avoiding a New York debate because of Sanders' tone when everyone know it is because she fears it will harm her chances of winning the state. In the past she has directly said "You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere.": https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/1016591345062536/ * She lied when Sanders noted her money from the oil industry. Worse than that, she lost her temper over it... even though she used the SAME attack against Obama when she was running against him. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/politics/hillary-clinton-oil-gas-donations-oba ma/ and her ad against Obama: https://youtu.be/3satJnoBXi8 She refuses to sign the agreement Sanders did to NOT take oil money, maybe because she has had massive amounts of oil money flow into the Clinton Foundation: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/09/oil-money-flowed-clinton-turned- back-rights-abuses-colombia-report * Her fighting against Sanders for the $15 / hour minimum wage and then in New York working with the people fighting for it pretending she was backing it the whole time and is with them on their fight. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-clinton-minimum-wage-20160404-s tory.html -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 18:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7g97b$gtt$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99822 |
On 2017-02-07 21:51:49 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said: > I have seen lists copied from the web. Not even quoting them... I mean, > really, it lists her being a class president and the first lady (something > she was not elected to) and serving on the board of Wal-Mart. So what? Because it's all true and fact based. So name a person with better qualifications? -- "Now Trump and his minions are in the driver’s seat, attempting to pose as respectable participants in American politics, when their views come out of a playbook written in German." -Ron Rosenbaum, Author of 'Explaining Hitler' https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-munich-post/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 16:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D4C0FA47.8F25A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #99983 |
On 2/8/17, 4:24 PM, in article o7g97b$gtt$4@dont-email.me, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2017-02-07 21:51:49 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said: > >> I have seen lists copied from the web. Not even quoting them... I mean, >> really, it lists her being a class president and the first lady (something >> she was not elected to) and serving on the board of Wal-Mart. So what? > > Because it's all true and fact based. So name a person with better > qualifications? Sanders for one, but really pretty much any other Democrat on the national stage would have been better than her. She was a HORRIBLE candidate. I mean who else has ever lost to someone as bad as Trump? THAT takes talent... but you left it off her resume. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-08 21:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7gk44$dvr$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100004 |
On 2017-02-08 18:39:35 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said: > On 2/8/17, 4:24 PM, in article o7g97b$gtt$4@dont-email.me, "FPP" > <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2017-02-07 21:51:49 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said: >> >>> I have seen lists copied from the web. Not even quoting them... I mean, >>> really, it lists her being a class president and the first lady (something >>> she was not elected to) and serving on the board of Wal-Mart. So what? >> >> Because it's all true and fact based. So name a person with better >> qualifications? > > Sanders for one, but really pretty much any other Democrat on the national > stage would have been better than her. She was a HORRIBLE candidate. I mean > who else has ever lost to someone as bad as Trump? THAT takes talent... but > you left it off her resume. :) Bernie would have lost in a landslide. To ANY Republican candidate. The GOP was DYING to run against Bernie. Look, I liked the guy, and his policies... but he would have been beat like a rented Army mule. -- "I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it. Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies! -2017 "WAR IS PEACE." "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY." "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!" -1984 Eric Arthur Blair
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web