Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #366298 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-22 20:04 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-08-25 08:38 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 382 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:04 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:35 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:47 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:51 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:07 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:16 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:32 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:38 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 22:04 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 23:00 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 16:13 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 09:11 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 16:22 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 09:37 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 16:54 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 10:14 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 17:21 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 10:29 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 17:43 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 11:03 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 09:51 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 14:17 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 09:05 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 11:51 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:01 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 18:27 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:46 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 21:17 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:07 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 09:41 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 20:06 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 00:13 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 20:33 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 01:24 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 08:14 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:26 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 08:10 -0400
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-26 09:07 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 13:37 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-26 09:56 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 10:42 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:23 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:29 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 10:41 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:23 -0700
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 09:17 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:08 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:17 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:32 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 09:24 -0700
Re: Another day chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-26 11:27 -0500
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:36 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:45 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:52 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 13:43 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 17:18 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 14:39 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 18:42 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 17:24 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 00:09 +0000
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 17:33 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:29 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 12:08 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:26 -0600
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 04:21 +0000
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 21:46 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 05:15 +0000
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 05:42 +0000
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 00:07 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:30 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 12:09 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:27 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 19:06 -0700
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 09:20 +0200
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 10:04 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 01:06 -0700
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 10:23 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 01:39 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 01:09 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 01:27 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-27 15:10 -0400
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 21:58 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 13:17 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:28 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 19:15 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 09:38 -0400
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 22:22 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 13:37 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-27 19:10 -0400
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 03:20 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 09:35 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-28 09:16 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 10:03 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-27 15:02 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:19 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 15:34 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 19:03 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:28 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:27 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 12:06 -0700
Re: Another day -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:20 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 18:24 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 19:01 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 19:42 -0700
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 07:39 -0700
Re: Another day William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-28 16:22 +0100
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 09:50 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 15:29 -0400
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 20:16 +0000
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 17:40 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 15:14 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 18:19 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 16:18 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 19:40 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 16:42 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 19:44 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 16:56 -0700
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 19:59 -0400
Re: Another day Andy Rains <andyrains@myself.com> - 2016-08-28 18:16 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-28 09:08 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-28 09:17 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-29 09:06 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 09:42 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 11:50 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 10:00 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-28 19:22 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-28 16:57 -0700
Re: Another day Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-08-29 18:39 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 15:43 -0700
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 23:12 +0000
Re: Another day ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 23:15 +0000
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 17:09 -0700
Re: Another day Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-08-29 20:52 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 18:13 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-29 19:34 -0400
Re: Another day Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-30 01:49 +0200
Re: Another day Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-30 01:46 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 17:21 -0700
Re: Another day Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-30 02:26 +0200
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 17:33 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-30 09:16 -0400
Re: Another day Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-30 15:26 +0200
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-28 12:38 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 17:16 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 14:23 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:20 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 18:38 -0400
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 01:50 +0200
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 20:13 -0400
Re: Another day Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-08-27 09:19 +0200
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:35 -0600
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-27 12:15 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: Another day Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-29 08:08 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-27 15:10 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:21 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 09:36 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:43 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:00 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:08 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:16 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:32 +0000
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 10:39 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 18:04 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:39 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 10:53 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:26 -0400
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 12:23 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 18:06 +0000
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 19:11 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:22 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:11 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:29 +0000
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 18:12 +0000
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 19:19 +0000
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 10:33 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 21:20 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 21:27 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 14:04 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 13:07 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 18:00 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:18 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 23:40 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 08:26 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:37 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:42 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 11:49 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 14:08 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 21:18 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 09:47 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 12:00 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 11:13 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 15:57 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 15:16 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 22:31 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 15:44 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 23:00 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 16:07 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:25 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 21:40 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:22 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 21:39 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 11:59 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 21:14 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 20:50 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:39 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 12:07 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:44 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:17 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-23 20:07 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 01:02 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 09:59 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 14:25 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 10:58 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 15:16 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:16 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 21:34 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:09 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-23 20:08 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 01:10 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:28 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 10:12 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 09:03 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:20 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 12:29 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:55 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:11 -0700
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:20 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 20:33 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:45 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 20:50 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 14:02 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:54 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:10 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:19 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 09:32 -0400
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 10:54 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 11:08 -0400
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 12:03 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 12:47 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:19 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 11:59 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 11:16 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 15:59 -0600
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 22:13 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 15:18 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:29 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-23 15:14 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:33 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 07:56 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:23 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:43 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:53 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:10 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 20:22 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:26 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 20:36 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:46 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 20:58 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 20:14 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:18 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-23 20:47 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 01:24 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:48 -0600
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 05:06 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:27 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 10:24 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 14:34 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 10:58 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 15:14 +0000
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:30 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:00 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 08:58 -0700
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:24 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:31 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 12:16 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:51 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:17 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 20:56 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 20:33 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:16 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:30 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 11:49 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:48 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:09 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 20:55 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 20:13 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:15 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 11:44 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:22 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:48 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 07:57 -0400
Re: Another day -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 06:41 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:35 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:51 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:17 -0600
Re: Another day Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:03 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:36 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:09 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 09:27 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:33 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:44 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:44 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 17:14 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:10 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:48 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:16 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:24 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:28 -0600
Re: Another day Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-08-25 07:10 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-23 22:46 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-24 09:58 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 14:28 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 08:54 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 13:47 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 13:08 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 20:45 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-24 20:03 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 12:00 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 11:12 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:09 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:37 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 14:50 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:07 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 19:23 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:25 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:44 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 09:47 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 11:58 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 11:04 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:05 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:37 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 23:38 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:39 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:26 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 13:42 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 14:47 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 11:53 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 17:04 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 19:20 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:24 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 17:36 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 23:37 -0600
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 07:53 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 11:56 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 11:04 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 11:53 -0600
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 19:16 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-25 23:22 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 19:24 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-25 23:37 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:26 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 02:51 +0000
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 22:54 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 19:59 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 03:01 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 21:19 -0700
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 19:56 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 03:00 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 20:31 -0700
Re: Another day DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-25 22:29 -0400
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 02:50 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 19:57 -0700
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 03:04 +0000
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 20:31 -0700
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 08:22 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 07:58 -0400
Re: Another day Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 18:26 -0700
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:44 -0600
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-24 12:43 -0600
Re: Another day "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-24 19:15 +0000
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:19 -0400
Re: Another day GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-25 11:51 -0600
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 14:42 -0400
Re: Another day Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:38 -0400
Page 16 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 20 Next page →
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 11:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nppul1$pjj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366985 |
-hh wrote:
> Silver Slimer wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>> >
>> > And also that the border patrol support trump. Most of the
>> > time the patrols are told to stand down... from the Obama
>> > administration.
>>
>> Absolute fact and the border patrol agents are very vocal about this.
>
> Jurisdictionally, they're part of the Dept. of Homeland Security,
> and as such, they're subject to the Hatch Act.
>
> Under the Hatch Act, regardless of the party/candidate, this
> sort of partisan campaigning is absolutely prohibited. Period.
>
> FYI, its essentially the same prohibition as currently exists
> for uniformed military, Department of Defense Directive 1344.10
> where its a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of
> Military Justice ("...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
>
> So if it is true, they would be damn lucky if they're getting
> hit with only a mere warning.
>
> FYI, the Hatch Act's prohibition on political activity applies
> for both when in official capacity as well as not: the only
> way for a Federal Employee to no longer be subject to the Hatch
> Act is for them to no longer be a Federal Employee.
>
>
Of course that is true. But when shit hits the fan, they have to do
something. And of course the fact that the FBI won't indict Hillary also
gives the border patrol an excuse not to be fired because she got
preferrential treatment.
--
My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <npq6j8$l40$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367082 |
Snit wrote:
> On 8/26/16, 10:35 AM, in article nppul1$pjj$2@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
> <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>>> Jurisdictionally, they're part of the Dept. of Homeland Security,
>>> and as such, they're subject to the Hatch Act.
>>>
>>> Under the Hatch Act, regardless of the party/candidate, this
>>> sort of partisan campaigning is absolutely prohibited. Period.
>>>
>>> FYI, its essentially the same prohibition as currently exists
>>> for uniformed military, Department of Defense Directive 1344.10
>>> where its a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of
>>> Military Justice ("...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
>>>
>>> So if it is true, they would be damn lucky if they're getting
>>> hit with only a mere warning.
>>>
>>> FYI, the Hatch Act's prohibition on political activity applies
>>> for both when in official capacity as well as not: the only
>>> way for a Federal Employee to no longer be subject to the Hatch
>>> Act is for them to no longer be a Federal Employee.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course that is true. But when shit hits the fan, they have to do
>> something. And of course the fact that the FBI won't indict Hillary also
>> gives the border patrol an excuse not to be fired because she got
>> preferrential treatment.
>
> As much as I find Clinton to be horrid, I have no reason to doubt Comey's
> integrity. The laws is set up so Clinton would have had to admit to
> breaking the law... which is an absurd standard. But if he is right about
> that standard, and it seems he is, then she got out of it.
>
> Which is sickening.
>
> Now when will they go after her on perjury. Comey basically suggested they
> should!
>
>
I have heard that the FBI will soon bring out hard evidence against Hillary.
Their main problem is that Hillary and Bill have them by the short hairs
right now, and the FBI is looking for a way to get out from under their
thumb. If they do, She's toast.
--
My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 16:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <npqf4v$n40$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367125 |
Snit wrote:
> On 8/26/16, 12:51 PM, in article npq6j8$l40$4@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
> <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/26/16, 10:35 AM, in article nppul1$pjj$2@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
>>> <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Jurisdictionally, they're part of the Dept. of Homeland Security,
>>>>> and as such, they're subject to the Hatch Act.
>>>>>
>>>>> Under the Hatch Act, regardless of the party/candidate, this
>>>>> sort of partisan campaigning is absolutely prohibited. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI, its essentially the same prohibition as currently exists
>>>>> for uniformed military, Department of Defense Directive 1344.10
>>>>> where its a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of
>>>>> Military Justice ("...shall be punished as a court-martial may
>>>>> direct."
>>>>>
>>>>> So if it is true, they would be damn lucky if they're getting
>>>>> hit with only a mere warning.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI, the Hatch Act's prohibition on political activity applies
>>>>> for both when in official capacity as well as not: the only
>>>>> way for a Federal Employee to no longer be subject to the Hatch
>>>>> Act is for them to no longer be a Federal Employee.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course that is true. But when shit hits the fan, they have to do
>>>> something. And of course the fact that the FBI won't indict Hillary
>>>> also gives the border patrol an excuse not to be fired because she got
>>>> preferrential treatment.
>>>
>>> As much as I find Clinton to be horrid, I have no reason to doubt
>>> Comey's integrity. The laws is set up so Clinton would have had to admit
>>> to breaking the law... which is an absurd standard. But if he is right
>>> about that standard, and it seems he is, then she got out of it.
>>>
>>> Which is sickening.
>>>
>>> Now when will they go after her on perjury. Comey basically suggested
>>> they should!
>>
>> I have heard that the FBI will soon bring out hard evidence against
>> Hillary. Their main problem is that Hillary and Bill have them by the
>> short hairs right now, and the FBI is looking for a way to get out from
>> under their
>> thumb. If they do, She's toast.
>
> I would love to see it... then the DNC would have to put forward someone
> else. Might be Sanders, but even if not it would almost surely have to be
> someone better.
>
> But I have little hope of that happening between now and November.
>
Neither do I.
She got her free pass.
--
My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f02a605-144f-4d3e-8587-a690a2d9f986@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367082 |
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:26:17 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 8/26/16, 10:35 AM, in article nppul1$pjj$2@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud"
> <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
> >> Jurisdictionally, they're part of the Dept. of Homeland Security,
> >> and as such, they're subject to the Hatch Act.
> >>
> >> Under the Hatch Act, regardless of the party/candidate, this
> >> sort of partisan campaigning is absolutely prohibited. Period.
> >>
> >> FYI, its essentially the same prohibition as currently exists
> >> for uniformed military, Department of Defense Directive 1344.10
> >> where its a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of
> >> Military Justice ("...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
> >>
> >> So if it is true, they would be damn lucky if they're getting
> >> hit with only a mere warning.
> >>
> >> FYI, the Hatch Act's prohibition on political activity applies
> >> for both when in official capacity as well as not: the only
> >> way for a Federal Employee to no longer be subject to the Hatch
> >> Act is for them to no longer be a Federal Employee.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Of course that is true. But when shit hits the fan, they have to do
> > something. And of course the fact that the FBI won't indict Hillary also
> > gives the border patrol an excuse not to be fired because she got
> > preferrential treatment.
>
> As much as I find
Here's but one of the pertinent codes I found:
"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793>
Intent, admissions, etc. are not mentioned here; you might note that section f is one that actually specified a legal punishment:
"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both".
> Clinton to be horrid, I have no reason to doubt Comey's
> integrity. The laws is set up so Clinton would have had to admit to breaking
> the law...
Explain how you get that after reading what I've quoted above any time you'd like.
> which is an absurd standard.
Which is BS... that you're probably just parroting from elsewhere.
>But if he is right about that
> standard, and it seems he is
To whom does it "seem" that way? Not people who can read what I've quoted. Comey's "standard" was based on the idea that such cases have not, historically, been prosecuted, a concept he was confronted with during his testimony and one he dodged.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E5B002.7A3AF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366963 |
On 8/26/16, 4:57 AM, in article nppar1$ihb$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2016-08-25 7:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> Snit wrote: >> >>> On 8/25/16, 11:15 AM, in article npncj9$t6u$1@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud" >>> <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>>>> Hehe... the perfect candidate. But how is he grossly bigoted? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His comments about Mexicans, Muslims, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn't call it bigoted so much as he wants the immigration laws >>>>>> upheld that we have been using for a century. >>>>> >>>>> I absolutely would call it bigotry... it is by definition. There is no >>>>> "if" about it. >>>> >>>> What, to obey the laws on the books is bigotry? >>> >>> Not something I ever said, but open to listening. >> >> That's the whole thing... Obama is a scofflaw that won't obey the laws >> already on the books. There is no bigotry in trumps words. It is how the >> media has decided to say he is a bigot. You should have heard Shawn Hannity >> today on the radio... he had all of the past Hillary sound bites from the >> past that has shown her to be a flip-flopper on everything she said then and >> is trying to use now against trump. It won't work this time. > > I have to admit that I've grown to like Hannity a lot. Of course. He feeds into the right wing fear mongering and sense of entitlement and privilege. I am not surprised. ... >> How about the increase in muslim immigrants that haven't been vetted yet? >> Our own city government told him to take a hike on this immigrant resettling >> program. We sure don't want them here because they have no intentions of >> embracing our culture. > > They won't embrace the culture, will never consider themselves to be > Americans (unless they have something to gain by claiming to be) and > will most likely assault or rape citizens. All said about every group coming to America. You are spitting on what it means to be equal... a deep American value. ... >>> Watch him in ANY debate. He has no self control. >> >> What debates? They haven't actually have any debates except that one a >> while back in the spring. That stupid gal started off asking trump about >> how he treated women, which was really stupid on her part and had no place >> in a debate in the first place. We needed to hear about what policies he >> would share with the public in running this country. > > Unlike Snit, I have watched every single Republican and Democratic > debate and not just the highlights. I did not watch all the Republican ones... but I did watch the full Comey testimony. > In Trump's case, I can tell you very > objectively that he was treated fairly in debates on CNN (surprisingly) > but been attacked mercilessly by Fox News which seemed to have an agenda > to bring him down. I watched the first Fox one with him where he whined and whined and played victim. Boo hoo they called him out on his sexist comments and he throw a fit. A perfect example of why he should not be let in the White House. > He reacted like any human being would when he was > backed against the wall in what was very obviously a one-sided war > against him and I feel that he did fairly well despite it all. He played victim... all they did was ask him about his own bigoted comments. Boo hoo for him. NO sympathy. > His > biggest problem is he fact that he tends to repeat what he says way too > often. THAT made him look bad, not his comments themselves. He collapsed when faced with the slightest challenge. He has no backbone... his skin is thin and his thoughts are muddled. He is a disaster... not qualified in any way. But he has money, so many conservatives worship him. Look at recent comments by Owl who tried to defend him as a good business man. Utter poppycock. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <afhuvo03a.fg@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #367018 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/26/16, 4:57 AM, in article nppar1$ihb$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > But he has money, so many conservatives worship him. Look at recent comments > by Owl who tried to defend him as a good business man. Utter poppycock. > Got a quote for that? Of course you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E5BBF9.7A3D7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #367033 |
On 8/26/16, 9:09 AM, in article afhuvo03a.fg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/26/16, 4:57 AM, in article nppar1$ihb$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >> >> But he has money, so many conservatives worship him. Look at recent comments >> by Owl who tried to defend him as a good business man. Utter poppycock. >> > > Got a quote for that? Of course you don't. Are you saying you did not say Trump was a good business man? If so I may be thinking of someone else... not worth digging through past posts... at this point too many of the damned things anyway. So just say I am wrong and I will accept it... and apologize for the error. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 11:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nppuhg$pjj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366963 |
Silver Slimer wrote: >> >> Our country should come first. This country created this problem of >> their >> needs in the first place. Why exacerbate the problem? It was Hillary >> that helped the admin get arab spring going in the first place by using >> ISIS participants. > > If the latest e-mail leaks are to be believed, Hillary had a condition > brought on by either exhaustion or Parkinson's which prevented her from > making logical decisions. As such, she backed the wrong side and > believed that the sand parasites were fighting for a just cause. What we > now have is a fairly irreparable situation that is threatening to > destroy the West entirely and we are about to thank the culprit with the > presidency. I truly believe that it takes a particularly strong amount > of mental retardation to consider voting for Hillary at this point in > time. There are now photos of her being helped up simple steps, plus spending about $500,000 on the suvs to be lowered and equipped for handicapped access. http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped-stairs/ > > < snip > > >>> Watch him in ANY debate. He has no self control. >> >> What debates? They haven't actually have any debates except that one a >> while back in the spring. That stupid gal started off asking trump about >> how he treated women, which was really stupid on her part and had no >> place >> in a debate in the first place. We needed to hear about what policies he >> would share with the public in running this country. > > Unlike Snit, I have watched every single Republican and Democratic > debate and not just the highlights. In Trump's case, I can tell you very > objectively that he was treated fairly in debates on CNN (surprisingly) > but been attacked mercilessly by Fox News which seemed to have an agenda > to bring him down. He reacted like any human being would when he was > backed against the wall in what was very obviously a one-sided war > against him and I feel that he did fairly well despite it all. His > biggest problem is he fact that he tends to repeat what he says way too > often. THAT made him look bad, not his comments themselves. > > < snip > > Fox news made a turn around on their reporting of trump. Hannity is on foxnews as well, and he sure isn't nice towards the republican party that won't support trump. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nppv60$rrm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367080 |
On 2016-08-26 1:33 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > Silver Slimer wrote: > >>> >>> Our country should come first. This country created this problem of >>> their >>> needs in the first place. Why exacerbate the problem? It was Hillary >>> that helped the admin get arab spring going in the first place by using >>> ISIS participants. >> >> If the latest e-mail leaks are to be believed, Hillary had a condition >> brought on by either exhaustion or Parkinson's which prevented her from >> making logical decisions. As such, she backed the wrong side and >> believed that the sand parasites were fighting for a just cause. What we >> now have is a fairly irreparable situation that is threatening to >> destroy the West entirely and we are about to thank the culprit with the >> presidency. I truly believe that it takes a particularly strong amount >> of mental retardation to consider voting for Hillary at this point in >> time. > > There are now photos of her being helped up simple steps, plus spending > about $500,000 on the suvs to be lowered and equipped for handicapped > access. > > http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped-stairs/ I've seen it and laughed about it for a while. I DO believe the adult diapers story to be honest and her reaction, captured on video, really did appear to be a seizure. I had to watch it several times in an effort to dismiss it as "nothing," but no matter how often I saw it, it truly troubled me. They have pictures of her security also holding some sort of vaccine from the 1950s as well which is supposedly used to alleviate the symptoms of what might be Parkinson's. To say the least, even if I were a Democrat Snit, I wouldn't take the chance of supporting her bid to become president. >>>> Watch him in ANY debate. He has no self control. >>> >>> What debates? They haven't actually have any debates except that one a >>> while back in the spring. That stupid gal started off asking trump about >>> how he treated women, which was really stupid on her part and had no >>> place >>> in a debate in the first place. We needed to hear about what policies he >>> would share with the public in running this country. >> >> Unlike Snit, I have watched every single Republican and Democratic >> debate and not just the highlights. In Trump's case, I can tell you very >> objectively that he was treated fairly in debates on CNN (surprisingly) >> but been attacked mercilessly by Fox News which seemed to have an agenda >> to bring him down. He reacted like any human being would when he was >> backed against the wall in what was very obviously a one-sided war >> against him and I feel that he did fairly well despite it all. His >> biggest problem is he fact that he tends to repeat what he says way too >> often. THAT made him look bad, not his comments themselves. >> >> < snip > >> > Fox news made a turn around on their reporting of trump. Hannity is on > foxnews as well, and he sure isn't nice towards the republican party that > won't support trump. I respect that but mostly appreciate the fact that he no longer sounds as though he is simply reading from a teleprompter and exhibiting an actual personality. I can't stand fakes and that includes people who speak from a script when they are capable of expressing themselves from the gut and he has become a decent compromise. It's a shame, for me, that we don't get Fox News up in Canada. -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <npq671$l40$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367088 |
Silver Slimer wrote: > On 2016-08-26 1:33 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> Silver Slimer wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Our country should come first. This country created this problem of >>>> their >>>> needs in the first place. Why exacerbate the problem? It was Hillary >>>> that helped the admin get arab spring going in the first place by using >>>> ISIS participants. >>> >>> If the latest e-mail leaks are to be believed, Hillary had a condition >>> brought on by either exhaustion or Parkinson's which prevented her from >>> making logical decisions. As such, she backed the wrong side and >>> believed that the sand parasites were fighting for a just cause. What we >>> now have is a fairly irreparable situation that is threatening to >>> destroy the West entirely and we are about to thank the culprit with the >>> presidency. I truly believe that it takes a particularly strong amount >>> of mental retardation to consider voting for Hillary at this point in >>> time. >> >> There are now photos of her being helped up simple steps, plus spending >> about $500,000 on the suvs to be lowered and equipped for handicapped >> access. >> >> http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped-stairs/ > > I've seen it and laughed about it for a while. I DO believe the adult > diapers story to be honest and her reaction, captured on video, really > did appear to be a seizure. I had to watch it several times in an effort > to dismiss it as "nothing," but no matter how often I saw it, it truly > troubled me. They have pictures of her security also holding some sort > of vaccine from the 1950s as well which is supposedly used to alleviate > the symptoms of what might be Parkinson's. To say the least, even if I > were a Democrat Snit, I wouldn't take the chance of supporting her bid > to become president. > >>>>> Watch him in ANY debate. He has no self control. >>>> >>>> What debates? They haven't actually have any debates except that one a >>>> while back in the spring. That stupid gal started off asking trump >>>> about how he treated women, which was really stupid on her part and had >>>> no place >>>> in a debate in the first place. We needed to hear about what policies >>>> he would share with the public in running this country. >>> >>> Unlike Snit, I have watched every single Republican and Democratic >>> debate and not just the highlights. In Trump's case, I can tell you very >>> objectively that he was treated fairly in debates on CNN (surprisingly) >>> but been attacked mercilessly by Fox News which seemed to have an agenda >>> to bring him down. He reacted like any human being would when he was >>> backed against the wall in what was very obviously a one-sided war >>> against him and I feel that he did fairly well despite it all. His >>> biggest problem is he fact that he tends to repeat what he says way too >>> often. THAT made him look bad, not his comments themselves. >>> >>> < snip > >>> >> Fox news made a turn around on their reporting of trump. Hannity is on >> foxnews as well, and he sure isn't nice towards the republican party that >> won't support trump. > > I respect that but mostly appreciate the fact that he no longer sounds > as though he is simply reading from a teleprompter and exhibiting an > actual personality. I can't stand fakes and that includes people who > speak from a script when they are capable of expressing themselves from > the gut and he has become a decent compromise. It's a shame, for me, > that we don't get Fox News up in Canada. > > It's because George Soros had an emergency meeting for all the elite media moguls to take down trump and Fox news. Fox, I suspect, didn't like that at all, so they've finally resorted to the truth... a breath of fresh air. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 17:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npqbf4$8ud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367123 |
On 2016-08-26 3:44 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > Silver Slimer wrote: > >> On 2016-08-26 1:33 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>> Silver Slimer wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Our country should come first. This country created this problem of >>>>> their >>>>> needs in the first place. Why exacerbate the problem? It was Hillary >>>>> that helped the admin get arab spring going in the first place by using >>>>> ISIS participants. >>>> >>>> If the latest e-mail leaks are to be believed, Hillary had a condition >>>> brought on by either exhaustion or Parkinson's which prevented her from >>>> making logical decisions. As such, she backed the wrong side and >>>> believed that the sand parasites were fighting for a just cause. What we >>>> now have is a fairly irreparable situation that is threatening to >>>> destroy the West entirely and we are about to thank the culprit with the >>>> presidency. I truly believe that it takes a particularly strong amount >>>> of mental retardation to consider voting for Hillary at this point in >>>> time. >>> >>> There are now photos of her being helped up simple steps, plus spending >>> about $500,000 on the suvs to be lowered and equipped for handicapped >>> access. >>> >>> http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped-stairs/ >> >> I've seen it and laughed about it for a while. I DO believe the adult >> diapers story to be honest and her reaction, captured on video, really >> did appear to be a seizure. I had to watch it several times in an effort >> to dismiss it as "nothing," but no matter how often I saw it, it truly >> troubled me. They have pictures of her security also holding some sort >> of vaccine from the 1950s as well which is supposedly used to alleviate >> the symptoms of what might be Parkinson's. To say the least, even if I >> were a Democrat Snit, I wouldn't take the chance of supporting her bid >> to become president. >> >>>>>> Watch him in ANY debate. He has no self control. >>>>> >>>>> What debates? They haven't actually have any debates except that one a >>>>> while back in the spring. That stupid gal started off asking trump >>>>> about how he treated women, which was really stupid on her part and had >>>>> no place >>>>> in a debate in the first place. We needed to hear about what policies >>>>> he would share with the public in running this country. >>>> >>>> Unlike Snit, I have watched every single Republican and Democratic >>>> debate and not just the highlights. In Trump's case, I can tell you very >>>> objectively that he was treated fairly in debates on CNN (surprisingly) >>>> but been attacked mercilessly by Fox News which seemed to have an agenda >>>> to bring him down. He reacted like any human being would when he was >>>> backed against the wall in what was very obviously a one-sided war >>>> against him and I feel that he did fairly well despite it all. His >>>> biggest problem is he fact that he tends to repeat what he says way too >>>> often. THAT made him look bad, not his comments themselves. >>>> >>>> < snip > >>>> >>> Fox news made a turn around on their reporting of trump. Hannity is on >>> foxnews as well, and he sure isn't nice towards the republican party that >>> won't support trump. >> >> I respect that but mostly appreciate the fact that he no longer sounds >> as though he is simply reading from a teleprompter and exhibiting an >> actual personality. I can't stand fakes and that includes people who >> speak from a script when they are capable of expressing themselves from >> the gut and he has become a decent compromise. It's a shame, for me, >> that we don't get Fox News up in Canada. >> >> > > It's because George Soros had an emergency meeting for all the elite media > moguls to take down trump and Fox news. Fox, I suspect, didn't like that at > all, so they've finally resorted to the truth... a breath of fresh air. From what I understand, taking down Fox News was also a priority of that meeting. Either way, I can't believe that liberals are too stupid to notice that the media is constantly attacking Trump and conveniently keeping Hillary out of the line of fire. Some would argue that it's because Hillary has yet to do anything wrong, but we KNOW that's not true and there are lot of her crimes which need to be covered... but aren't due to a very clear bias. Again, you would either have to be the dumbest human being alive or simply delusional to continue being a liberal and consequently defend such a dishonest media system. -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 16:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <npqens$lqb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367123 |
Snit wrote: > On 8/26/16, 12:44 PM, in article npq671$l40$2@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud" > <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >>>>> Unlike Snit, I have watched every single Republican and Democratic >>>>> debate and not just the highlights. In Trump's case, I can tell you >>>>> very objectively that he was treated fairly in debates on CNN >>>>> (surprisingly) but been attacked mercilessly by Fox News which seemed >>>>> to have an agenda to bring him down. He reacted like any human being >>>>> would when he was backed against the wall in what was very obviously a >>>>> one-sided war against him and I feel that he did fairly well despite >>>>> it all. His biggest problem is he fact that he tends to repeat what he >>>>> says way too often. THAT made him look bad, not his comments >>>>> themselves. >>>>> >>>>> < snip > >>>>> >>>> Fox news made a turn around on their reporting of trump. Hannity is on >>>> foxnews as well, and he sure isn't nice towards the republican party >>>> that won't support trump. >>> >>> I respect that but mostly appreciate the fact that he no longer sounds >>> as though he is simply reading from a teleprompter and exhibiting an >>> actual personality. I can't stand fakes and that includes people who >>> speak from a script when they are capable of expressing themselves from >>> the gut and he has become a decent compromise. It's a shame, for me, >>> that we don't get Fox News up in Canada. >>> >>> >> >> It's because George Soros had an emergency meeting for all the elite >> media >> moguls to take down trump and Fox news. Fox, I suspect, didn't like that >> at all, so they've finally resorted to the truth... a breath of fresh >> air. > > Fox is the least reliable news source... with the least informed viewers. > I am certainly not making a general defense of them. But to ask questions > a candidate might not like is fine... esp. when the candidate has made > such sexist comments. He SHOULD be asked about them. > > It was until they learned what ol' George was up to. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <npq6dr$l40$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367080 |
Snit wrote: > On 8/26/16, 10:33 AM, in article nppuhg$pjj$1@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud" > <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >> Silver Slimer wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Our country should come first. This country created this problem of >>>> their >>>> needs in the first place. Why exacerbate the problem? It was Hillary >>>> that helped the admin get arab spring going in the first place by using >>>> ISIS participants. >>> >>> If the latest e-mail leaks are to be believed, Hillary had a condition >>> brought on by either exhaustion or Parkinson's which prevented her from >>> making logical decisions. As such, she backed the wrong side and >>> believed that the sand parasites were fighting for a just cause. What we >>> now have is a fairly irreparable situation that is threatening to >>> destroy the West entirely and we are about to thank the culprit with the >>> presidency. I truly believe that it takes a particularly strong amount >>> of mental retardation to consider voting for Hillary at this point in >>> time. >> >> There are now photos of her being helped up simple steps, plus spending >> about $500,000 on the suvs to be lowered and equipped for handicapped >> access. >> >> http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped-stairs/ > > I have seen the photos. They are worrisome... but we also do not know the > context. I believe that if the incident of her falling on her head a few years ago, and taking her sexual preferences into account, along with the Cuomadin that she is still taking may give credence to her ability to stand up and losing her balance. After all, she did get affected by blood clots, which cuomadin is for. > They do raise legitimate questions and I think it would be fair > to show the images and ask her about them in a debate. That I'd love to see as well. > >>> < snip > >>> >>>>> Watch him in ANY debate. He has no self control. >>>> >>>> What debates? They haven't actually have any debates except that one a >>>> while back in the spring. That stupid gal started off asking trump >>>> about how he treated women, which was really stupid on her part and had >>>> no place >>>> in a debate in the first place. We needed to hear about what policies >>>> he would share with the public in running this country. >>> >>> Unlike Snit, I have watched every single Republican and Democratic >>> debate and not just the highlights. In Trump's case, I can tell you very >>> objectively that he was treated fairly in debates on CNN (surprisingly) >>> but been attacked mercilessly by Fox News which seemed to have an agenda >>> to bring him down. He reacted like any human being would when he was >>> backed against the wall in what was very obviously a one-sided war >>> against him and I feel that he did fairly well despite it all. His >>> biggest problem is he fact that he tends to repeat what he says way too >>> often. THAT made him look bad, not his comments themselves. >>> >>> < snip > >>> >> Fox news made a turn around on their reporting of trump. Hannity is on >> foxnews as well, and he sure isn't nice towards the republican party that >> won't support trump. > > I have not listened to him recently, but he is not a rational person. If > he has changed I would be surprised. > Most likely paid to lie. Now that the restraints are off, he is telling it like it is now. After all, George Soros had an emergency meeting with the elite media moguls to find a way to take down trump and Fox news. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 16:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <npqf3a$n40$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367124 |
Snit wrote: > On 8/26/16, 12:48 PM, in article npq6dr$l40$3@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud" > <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > ... >>>> There are now photos of her being helped up simple steps, plus spending >>>> about $500,000 on the suvs to be lowered and equipped for handicapped >>>> access. >>>> >>>> http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped-stairs/ >>> >>> I have seen the photos. They are worrisome... but we also do not know >>> the context. >> >> I believe that if the incident of her falling on her head a few years >> ago, > > With you on this. > >> and taking her sexual preferences into account, > > Now you seem to be referring to rumors of her being gay... which are not > supported nor relevant that I can see. > Hehehe... Bill did say that she gets more pussy than he gets. I saw it from his own mouth moving. LOL!!! >> along with the Cuomadin that >> she is still taking may give credence to her ability to stand up and >> losing >> her balance. After all, she did get affected by blood clots, which >> cuomadin is for. > > I am not saying she does not have significant health issues... she very > well may... but I do not think we have evidence to say for sure. Her > passing a physical given by a doctor of her choice is not evidence she > does not! > If that doctor did give her a physical, he got some money to say that she is fine. Others doctors that haven't given her a physical said that she has issues. Especially that she is on that blood thinner for so long now, according to them. >>> They do raise legitimate questions and I think it would be fair >>> to show the images and ask her about them in a debate. >> >> That I'd love to see as well. > > We might have different levels of acceptance, but good to see we agree on > this. Yes, I think there is enough evidence to rise to the level of asking > her about it in debates. She will, of course, lie if there is truth to > them but it would be interesting to watch her body language. > Hehehe... so would I. > ... >>>> Fox news made a turn around on their reporting of trump. Hannity is on >>>> foxnews as well, and he sure isn't nice towards the republican party >>>> that won't support trump. >>> >>> I have not listened to him recently, but he is not a rational person. If >>> he has changed I would be surprised. >>> >> Most likely paid to lie. > > Would not surprise me. > >> Now that the restraints are off, he is telling it >> like it is now. >> After all, George Soros had an emergency meeting with the elite media >> moguls to find a way to take down trump and Fox news. > > I do not deny the powerful have a lot of influence, but I do not accept > conspiracy theories without a lot of evidence. > Theories and conspiracies are two different animals these days. Hillary did say that the there are right-wing conspiracies, without giving any evidence. That's how they play the game. As my dad said during election season, "Now watch the mud slinging begin." When you find a government agency document, which btw isn't a conspiracy but a plan, and you read it to find a bunch of horrors in it, they don't like the exposure to what they had written, so they call it a conspiracy theory. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 12:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <npsls9$prp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #367139 |
Snit wrote: > On 8/26/16, 3:16 PM, in article npqf3a$n40$1@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud" > <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >> Snit wrote: >> >>> On 8/26/16, 12:48 PM, in article npq6dr$l40$3@dont-email.me, "GreyCloud" >>> <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: >>> ... >>>>>> There are now photos of her being helped up simple steps, plus >>>>>> spending about $500,000 on the suvs to be lowered and equipped for >>>>>> handicapped access. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-grandma-hillary-helped- stairs/ >>>>> >>>>> I have seen the photos. They are worrisome... but we also do not know >>>>> the context. >>>> >>>> I believe that if the incident of her falling on her head a few years >>>> ago, >>> >>> With you on this. >>> >>>> and taking her sexual preferences into account, >>> >>> Now you seem to be referring to rumors of her being gay... which are not >>> supported nor relevant that I can see. >>> >> >> Hehehe... Bill did say that she gets more pussy than he gets. >> I saw it from his own mouth moving. LOL!!! > > I would love to see that video! It has been taken down, but I believe it was from last year or so. It's been bandied about. > >>>> along with the Cuomadin that >>>> she is still taking may give credence to her ability to stand up and >>>> losing >>>> her balance. After all, she did get affected by blood clots, which >>>> cuomadin is for. >>> >>> I am not saying she does not have significant health issues... she very >>> well may... but I do not think we have evidence to say for sure. Her >>> passing a physical given by a doctor of her choice is not evidence she >>> does not! >>> >> >> If that doctor did give her a physical, he got some money to say that she >> is fine. >> Others doctors that haven't given her a physical said that she has >> issues. Especially that she is on that blood thinner for so long now, >> according to them. > > Again, I have heard these rumors and would not be surprised if they were > true but I do not think we know. We don't know for certain, but when you get a bonk on the head serious enough to cause a blood clot, you have to take some blood thinner for a while, else it will eventually get to either the heart or lungs, and then it is lights out. > >>>>> They do raise legitimate questions and I think it would be fair >>>>> to show the images and ask her about them in a debate. >>>> >>>> That I'd love to see as well. >>> >>> We might have different levels of acceptance, but good to see we agree >>> on this. Yes, I think there is enough evidence to rise to the level of >>> asking her about it in debates. She will, of course, lie if there is >>> truth to them but it would be interesting to watch her body language. >> >> Hehehe... so would I. >> >>> ... >>>>>> Fox news made a turn around on their reporting of trump. Hannity is >>>>>> on foxnews as well, and he sure isn't nice towards the republican >>>>>> party that won't support trump. >>>>> >>>>> I have not listened to him recently, but he is not a rational person. >>>>> If he has changed I would be surprised. >>>>> >>>> Most likely paid to lie. >>> >>> Would not surprise me. >>> >>>> Now that the restraints are off, he is telling it >>>> like it is now. >>>> After all, George Soros had an emergency meeting with the elite media >>>> moguls to find a way to take down trump and Fox news. >>> >>> I do not deny the powerful have a lot of influence, but I do not accept >>> conspiracy theories without a lot of evidence. >> >> Theories and conspiracies are two different animals these days. Hillary >> did say that the there are right-wing conspiracies, without giving any >> evidence. > > Oh, the right wing does make up things about her but she invites it by > being so corrupt. Both sides are wrong. Oh, I believe so. > >> That's how they play the game. As my dad said during election season, >> "Now watch the mud slinging begin." >> >> When you find a government agency document, which btw isn't a conspiracy >> but a plan, and you read it to find a bunch of horrors in it, they don't >> like the exposure to what they had written, so they call it a conspiracy >> theory. >> > > > -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 12:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <npkp0r$msu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366476 |
On 08/24/16 08:24, DFS wrote: > On 8/23/2016 9:24 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > > >> Hold your nose and pull the lever for Trump. You know it's the right >> thing to do. > > I know voting for Trump - or Clinton - is the /wrong/ thing to do for > the United States. > > > > > Think of the Supreme Court if nothing else. > > arrggghhh... it's so frustrating. I can't stand either of them: Trump > for his trainwreck buffoonery, Clinton for her liberal, politician > mentality. > > I'm gonna have to write-in a Republican. Maybe vote Libertarian. > Look at it this way. Say you have some vermin in your house that you can't get rid of, so you hire an expert that knows how to do the job. You don't care what color he is, what clothes he wears, how he talks or cusses, just as long as he gets the job done correctly. I don't like Trumps demeanor, but he is the right man for the job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 07:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1bnvak99b2duj.dlg@tattoovampire.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #366476 |
DFS wrote: > I'm gonna have to write-in a Republican. Maybe vote Libertarian. I'm voting for Johnson even though he doesn't have the proverbial snowball's chance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 22:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <npj8rs$rni$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366430 |
On 08/23/16 18:47, DFS wrote: > On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > >> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet. > > > They're not "lies". They're flip-flops. > > http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801 > As if the liars can ever tell the truth, once they are paid in full. The only flip flops is the cabal panicing over this. > > > He lied - hugely - when he claimed he was worth $10 billion. Nope. That dude has actually access to more money that wall street has stolen so far. Mostly in the masons accounts. He is backed by them. You take the presses insinuations too far. http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2006.htm > > He lied when he claimed "No one knows the system better than me, which > is why I alone can fix it". > Ain't no lie, he knows where the bear is shitting in the woods. And he knows who is in the banking cabal too. > He lied when he claimed he didn't know the disabled reporter he cruelly > mocked was disabled. What reporter had that happened. Oh, yeah, when CNN told one of the biggest whoppers on air. Yeah, like that is the truth ... NOT!!!! > > He lied when he said Obama was the founder of ISIS, and Clinton the > co-founder. > Ain't no lie, fool. Obama is a muslim if you haven't figured that out yet. Why is the Muslim Brotherhood in the white house? > He lied when he says he saw video of the $400M ransom/leverage payment > made to Iran recently. He didn't lie... it was made public and he watched... very simple. > > He lied when he said Clinton and the Democrats are rigging the debates. > They did rig them with stupid bitches asking stupid questions that has nothing to do with this country. > He lied when he said Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton. > Guffaw!!! She sure did launder money. What do you think the Clinton foundation is for? Money laundering. A very small percentage, more like a pittance, goes to charity. It has already been proven it is a pay-for-play scheme to gain access. > http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/ > Politifact is a communist organization. Look it up. > > > He's ridiculous, and the Dem platform is a horrorshow of liberalism. > > Trump is the smartest president since JFK. The rest were lusers. This is the end of the democratic party as we know it. You can now call it the Communist party of the U.S.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 09:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npk96g$slt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366457 |
On 8/24/2016 12:46 AM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 08/23/16 18:47, DFS wrote: >> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> >>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet. >> >> >> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops. >> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801 >> >> > > As if the liars can ever tell the truth, once they are paid in full. > The only flip flops is the cabal panicing over this. The ONLY flip-flops are Trump saying something different week after week. Latest flip-flop? A "softening" of the hard-line immigration stance which was one of the earliest and most-repeated of his candidacy. "There certainly can be a softening because we're not looking to hurt people..." Soon there will be a "softening" of the border wall, then of his position on trade treaties, etc. He can't be trusted because he makes it up as he goes along. >> He lied - hugely - when he claimed he was worth $10 billion. > > Nope. Yes. He is NOT worth $10 billion. > That dude has actually access to more money that wall street has > stolen so far. Mostly in the masons accounts. He is backed by them. > You take the presses insinuations too far. > > http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2006.htm The 'mason' accounts? LMFAO! No such thing. >> He lied when he claimed "No one knows the system better than me, which >> is why I alone can fix it". >> > > Ain't no lie, he knows where the bear is shitting in the woods. And he > knows who is in the banking cabal too. It's a big lie. There are many politically connected wealthy insiders besides him, and he alone can fix nothing. It's actually pathetic that he claims to "know the system" so well - that means he used it to his and his company's advantage for many years. But all of a sudden it needs fixing? >> He lied when he claimed he didn't know the disabled reporter he cruelly >> mocked was disabled. > > What reporter had that happened. Oh, yeah, when CNN told one of the > biggest whoppers on air. Yeah, like that is the truth ... NOT!!!! You seem to be uninformed - that's your fault. Serge Kovaleski. >> He lied when he said Obama was the founder of ISIS, and Clinton the >> co-founder. >> > > Ain't no lie, fool. Obama is a muslim if you haven't figured that out > yet. Why is the Muslim Brotherhood in the white house? heh! You're starting to sound like a true, blithering idiot. >> He lied when he says he saw video of the $400M ransom/leverage payment >> made to Iran recently. > > He didn't lie... it was made public and he watched... very simple. There was no such video at the time he made that claim. He lied. >> He lied when he said Clinton and the Democrats are rigging the debates. >> > > They did rig them with stupid bitches asking stupid questions that has > nothing to do with this country. I mean the upcoming debates. >> He lied when he said Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton. >> > > Guffaw!!! She sure did launder money. What do you think the Clinton > foundation is for? Money laundering. > A very small percentage, more like a pittance, goes to charity. It has > already been proven it is a pay-for-play scheme to gain access. 88% is a very LARGE percentage. https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478 Get your act together, GC. You're simply ignorant and uninformed. >> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/ >> > > Politifact is a communist organization. > Look it up. blah blah blah bull.shit It's a fact-checking organization. Even if it were Communist in origin or intent, Trump's lies are still lies. >> He's ridiculous, and the Dem platform is a horrorshow of liberalism. >> >> > Trump is the smartest president since JFK. The rest were lusers. Bill Clinton was the smartest President since JFK, and soon Hillary Clinton will - unfortunately - be the smartest President since Bill Clinton. Too bad she's not a conservative - I would welcome a woman President. > This is the end of the democratic party as we know it. You can now call > it the Communist party of the U.S. Idiot. You clearly don't know what communism is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 14:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjavi903.afgp0@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366471 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 8/24/2016 12:46 AM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 08/23/16 18:47, DFS wrote: >>> On 8/23/2016 5:59 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>> >>>> I find Trump mostly honest. I don't know what lies he's told yet. >>> >>> >>> They're not "lies". They're flip-flops. >>> >>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801 >>> >>> >> >> As if the liars can ever tell the truth, once they are paid in full. >> The only flip flops is the cabal panicing over this. > > > The ONLY flip-flops are Trump saying something different week after week. > http://ow.ly/DFO6303xA1D Get used to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web