On 01/24/2016 09:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Bloomberg would be a welcome addition. He's a liberal Democrat, would
split the Hillary vote and allow and easy GOP win. With his big govt,
liberal positions on what kind of stock your rifle can have, how much
salt can be in your food, to what what size soda it's
legal for you to buy, you can be sure the GOP won't be voting for him.

That's for sure. As far as flyover country is concerned, Bloomberg is a
walking, talking stereotype.

On 01/24/2016 02:43 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Most sane people have opposite reactions to two different phrases when they hear them shouted. One is,"In Jesus name!" the other,"Allahu Akbar!" o_O

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pennst...ial/7171725458

On 01/24/2016 06:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
None of that is the issue that I was pointing out. The issue is that
clearly different rules apply for different people. Some can break
promises with little consequence. Others, like Bush 41 and taxes,
it is a BFD.

Sit back and ask yourself why it was a BFD in the Republican party
itself. Bush was running a campaign right down the center and that was a
fish thrown to the conservatives in the party to get their vote.
Gingrich and others felt betrayed and believed, correctly, that Bush had
damaged the brand.

Buchanan ripped him with it in the primaries, and Clinton kept up the
chant. Divide your own party and it's a BFD.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 01:33:55 -0800, T wrote:

Now how exactly did Harry Reid get so wealth? Hmmmmmm

You get three guesses and the first two don't count.

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Robert Green:
I *still* will vote for Trump because either way, it will cause the RNC
to
figure out how to stop the character assassination of fellow R's that the
nominating process has become and then maybe they will win an election.

How about Bloomberg?

Assuming that he decides to run and it seemed like he had a reasonable
chance of winning....and voting for him would not just be a lost vote
(as in the case of Perot); would you consider voting for Bloomberg ?

Nah. After the soda fiasco I lost faith in him. That was a pretty dim
thing to get behind.

--
Bobby G.

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 11:20:01 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Robert Green:
I *still* will vote for Trump because either way, it will cause the RNC
to
figure out how to stop the character assassination of fellow R's that the
nominating process has become and then maybe they will win an election.

How about Bloomberg?

Assuming that he decides to run and it seemed like he had a reasonable
chance of winning....and voting for him would not just be a lost vote
(as in the case of Perot); would you consider voting for Bloomberg ?

Nah. After the soda fiasco I lost faith in him. That was a pretty dim
thing to get behind.

--
Bobby G.

Rather odd. Bloomberg's legislating what size soda you can buy is very
typical of the big govt libs. It's not unique, yet you sure love the
rest of the lefties with similar ideas.

On 01/24/2016 06:36 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Robert Green:
... and Trump could select Sarah Palin as his running mate....

The Presidency as a reality show: every standup comedian's dream !....
-)


In 2008, the scuttlebutt was that since Sarah filled her events to
overflow and the old RINO could not fill one for his for his life, it
created a lot of bad blood between the two.

On 01/24/2016 06:41 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per T:
Ask yourself. Now which party has been in charge of Detroit
and for how many years? Hmmmmm. Naw, couldn't be.

Ok, in that vein: which party was in charge of the nation for the eight
years preceding the biggest recession since The Great Depression ?


A RINO, who couldn't stop spending

1/2 and 1/2 Dems and Reps (mostly RINOs).

biggest recession since The Great Depression

Thank you for that. Most people do not realize how bad
it is and continues to be.

Also, if it were not for the Anti Business and fiscal policies
(spend, spend, spend, spend) of the current administration,
we would have come storming back from the recession years
ago instead of sliding further in it.

Okay, not to poke a bunch of politicians in the eye, but
government can do absolutely nothing to improve
an economy. Government can only hurt an economy.
Government need to get out of the way and let the American
people solve this themselves and stop trying to turn
us into a Socialist Toilet.

This administration has no clue. You even have to go back as
far as the second worst president in American history
(Carter) to find an administration with fewer business
people on its staff.

And as far a Detroit goes, it has been Dem for as far back
as the nose can smell. Not a Rep ANYWHERE is sight to
blame. And what happened to Detroit is exactly what always
happens when Dems run the show.

Can you think of a single Socialist Toilet anywhere in the
world or in the history of the world where there was
a vibrant economy. Ever wonder why?

On 01/24/2016 11:48 AM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 01:33:55 -0800, T wrote:

Now how exactly did Harry Reid get so wealth? Hmmmmmm

You get three guesses and the first two don't count.


There is one law for the Dems and Elites and one
law for the rest of us.

One wonders if when the FBI pulls the plunger on Hillary,
if they will also indite "the zipper" along with her
over all their illegal activities at the Clinton Foundation.

If I had pulled 1/1000000 what Hillary pulled with classified
data, my bones would still be in prison 500 years from now.

One law for them; one law for the rest of us.

And you know, this doesn't seem to bother the Libs.

And her server was hacked; and she was backing up over the
cloud; and she had names of our agents on her server.
I wonder how many she managed to get killed?

Uncle Monster posted for all of us...



On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 3:52:00 PM UTC-6, Tekkie® wrote:
Uncle Monster posted for all of us...

I think Muggles will be glad to know this because the black helos are
coming
for greenhouses.
--
Tekkie

She mentioned a while back that her husband caught some person unknown to him trying to get through one of their gates. It could have been a narc or a pothead hoping to find marijuana in their greenhouse. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Pot Monster

Should have called the cops and watch the circus act. After ID'ing the actor
then could move forward with inspection of the facility likely to bring more
laughs to all involved.
--
Tekkie

In my country, we're supposed to have rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill Of Rights. We don't have to call law enforcement to let them inspect our property so they can make sure we're not violating any laws. Unfortunately our Constitution is being ignored and our rights, freedom and liberty are evaporating because the citizenry is allowing it. Muggs and her husband must be careful because a SWAT team may kick in their doors and go
through their property because they could be suspected of growing pot. What ever she does, she should never have friends over to play poker for money, watch and bet on ball games or serve alcohol. She could be killed by a police SWAT team. o_O

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%...ut_of_control/

http://tinyurl.com/n46he3d

[8~{} Uncle SWAT Monster

Yeah, I don't like it either but she seems pretty concerned about the "black
helos". I was trying to give her suggestions about how she could remedy her
concerns.

Around here the cops would respond to the prowler call and either catch them
or leave after talking to her. They may express interest in the greenhouses
and tanks because it's not in their usual purview. They're not there to play
Sam spade.

--
Tekkie

(PeteCresswell) posted for all of us...



Per Tekkie®:
Neither party has any idea of what the voters want.

I have to wonder if they actually *do*... and what the voters want is in
line with a room-temperature national IQ....

To Wit: Cheyney's infamous "Nobody cares about the deficit." statement.

He took flak about that, but my take was that he was expressing a
legitimate and informed opinion of his electorate.

That seems to born out as there is very little talk about it now.

--
Tekkie

(PeteCresswell) posted for all of us...



Per Robert Green:
I *still* will vote for Trump because either way, it will cause the RNC to
figure out how to stop the character assassination of fellow R's that the
nominating process has become and then maybe they will win an election.

How about Bloomberg?

Assuming that he decides to run and it seemed like he had a reasonable
chance of winning....and voting for him would not just be a lost vote
(as in the case of Perot); would you consider voting for Bloomberg ?

As stated previously NO.

--
Tekkie

Per trader_4:
http://hotair.com/...because-other-s...s-a-whack-job/

I'm no Trump fan - unless you consider entertainment value.

But I am starting to hear stuff about Cruz that gives me serious pause
or, perhaps, entertainment value approaching Trump's....

Google "Cruz Dominionist"....

I am currently poking through The Wayback Machine's backups of his
father's (as referred to in http://tinyurl.com/o3wkyab) defunct web site
"PURIFYINGFIRE.ORG" - which seems to have been taken down coincident
with it's causing PR problems for the candidate.

(http://web.archive.org/web/201104010...IFYINGFIRE.ORG)



--
Pete Cresswell

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 11:32:40 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per trader_4:
http://hotair.com/...because-other-s...s-a-whack-job/

I'm no Trump fan - unless you consider entertainment value.

But I am starting to hear stuff about Cruz that gives me serious pause
or, perhaps, entertainment value approaching Trump's....

Google "Cruz Dominionist"....

I am currently poking through The Wayback Machine's backups of his
father's (as referred to in http://tinyurl.com/o3wkyab) defunct web site
"PURIFYINGFIRE.ORG" - which seems to have been taken down coincident
with it's causing PR problems for the candidate.

(http://web.archive.org/web/201104010...IFYINGFIRE.ORG)



--
Pete Cresswell

From a quick google, it sounds like a smear attempt, using guilt
by association. What I see are attacks on his father, who is a
minister. It's not about what Ted Cruz, said, it'a about what his
father has said. And even the couple of quotes I saw from the father
don't sound all that alarming. More like calling on Christians
to get involved in govt, stand up for Christian values, stand
against the wicked, etc.

Per trader_4:
Are you seriously trying to compare the EPA, protecting the nations rivers
and drinking water, with commie Bloomberg's attempt to tell us what size
soda it's legal to buy and whether we can have salt shakers on tables?
Good grief. And you just proved yourself wrong, by citing that it's
conservatives that have issues with agencies like EPA going too far. You
libs just want more regulations and support the idiot actions of the
likes of Bloomberg.

Read "Fat Chance" by Robert Lustig.
http://profiles.ucsf.edu/robert.lustig

He's no lightweight.... and he advocates the case that sugar in our diet
is a very, very big deal - as in the major factor behind the world-wide
obesity epidemic..... as in hundreds of thousands... maybe millions upon
millions of premature deaths, huge medical costs, and diminished
productivity.

He is not alone.

I can see some of the criticisms of Bloomberg's action, and maybe it was
foolish... maybe.... but only politically. It was not without a firm
basis.

Look at it this way:

- Separate out the criminalization of addictive drug *use* from the
criminalization of addictive drug *sales*.

- Addictive drug *sales* can be viewed as a power struggle between
civilized governments and lawless elements - competing for people's
money and productivity.

If one buys into Lustig's analysis, sugar can be viewed in a similar
manner
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 1:04:50 PM UTC-6, rbowman wrote:
On 01/24/2016 02:43 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Most sane people have opposite reactions to two different phrases when they hear them shouted. One is,"In Jesus name!" the other,"Allahu Akbar!" o_O

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pennst...ial/7171725458

It turns out that Joseph McCarthy was right after all. Our current President was raised by Commies and look at all the wonderful things he's done for the country by trying to become our first Communist dictator. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Patriot Monster

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 1:37:30 PM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per trader_4:
Are you seriously trying to compare the EPA, protecting the nations rivers
and drinking water, with commie Bloomberg's attempt to tell us what size
soda it's legal to buy and whether we can have salt shakers on tables?
Good grief. And you just proved yourself wrong, by citing that it's
conservatives that have issues with agencies like EPA going too far. You
libs just want more regulations and support the idiot actions of the
likes of Bloomberg.

Read "Fat Chance" by Robert Lustig.
http://profiles.ucsf.edu/robert.lustig

He's no lightweight.... and he advocates the case that sugar in our diet
is a very, very big deal - as in the major factor behind the world-wide
obesity epidemic..... as in hundreds of thousands... maybe millions upon
millions of premature deaths, huge medical costs, and diminished
productivity.

He is not alone.

I can see some of the criticisms of Bloomberg's action, and maybe it was
foolish... maybe.... but only politically. It was not without a firm
basis.


It was totally without a firm basis. It's not govt job to force us
to eat the way they think we should eat. And it's also totally stupid,
because you can buy 2 drinks instead of one. How about in the 70s
when the govt knew that the best thing for us all was to eat margarine
made of transfat, instead of butter? They shoved that down our throats.
Now they have banned it, because they figured out they were wrong and
that transfat is dangerous and butter is better for you.



Look at it this way:

- Separate out the criminalization of addictive drug *use* from the
criminalization of addictive drug *sales*.

- Addictive drug *sales* can be viewed as a power struggle between
civilized governments and lawless elements - competing for people's
money and productivity.

If one buys into Lustig's analysis, sugar can be viewed in a similar
manner
--
Pete Cresswell

Only by libs, which is why I don't want them anywhere near govt.