On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:50:00 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:58:15 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 7:33:24 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:56:57 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:

Because you really think that the US would be better off with with Trump or perhaps Christie in the Oval Office?

Hard to tell who lies more, slow eddy or Chris Christie:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lan-raise-you/

Last time I checked, Ed Huntress had not filed any paperwork to run for President of the US. I truly don't understand your obsession, but that obsession is yours to enjoy.

Meanwhile, your expressed intent to throw away your vote should Clinton win the nomination demonstrates a contempt for society. Nobody here really gives a damn about what you think, other than to use it against you.

NOBODY in the white house even cares whether you're alive except on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, every four years. And yet you are prepared to throw your vote away in protest. What a waste.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, Sometimes you go to the General election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you wanted to have.

I picture the POTUS in negotiations with Putin. Picturing any of the Republican candidates in such a situation is just chilling. I would think that Biden, Sanders or Clinton would do fine. Clinton really showed her stuff at last week's 11-hour Benghazi grilling. Had I been in her place, I expect I would have lost my cool very early in the game, telling them all to go **** themselves. But she held her ground and her composure. I think that is a serious addition to her resume.

As Ed said, I'm not buying a used car from any of them, just as no one was going to have a beer with Bush Jr. We're electing a president of a country, not an aluminum siding contractor.

Grow up, Jon.


Ralph Nader has a message for worthless sellouts like you and slow eddy:

http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/x...alph_Nader.jpg

Yeah, right. Ralph ****ING Nader who threw a hissy fit and gave us 8 years of Bush Jr. Just the kind of guy an asshole like you would take voting advice from.

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:24:34 AM UTC-8, rangerssuck wrote:
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:50:00 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:58:15 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 7:33:24 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:56:57 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:

Because you really think that the US would be better off with with Trump or perhaps Christie in the Oval Office?

Hard to tell who lies more, slow eddy or Chris Christie:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lan-raise-you/

Last time I checked, Ed Huntress had not filed any paperwork to run for President of the US. I truly don't understand your obsession, but that obsession is yours to enjoy.

Meanwhile, your expressed intent to throw away your vote should Clinton win the nomination demonstrates a contempt for society. Nobody here really gives a damn about what you think, other than to use it against you.

NOBODY in the white house even cares whether you're alive except on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, every four years. And yet you are prepared to throw your vote away in protest. What a waste.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, Sometimes you go to the General election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you wanted to have.

I picture the POTUS in negotiations with Putin. Picturing any of the Republican candidates in such a situation is just chilling. I would think that Biden, Sanders or Clinton would do fine. Clinton really showed her stuff at last week's 11-hour Benghazi grilling. Had I been in her place, I expect I would have lost my cool very early in the game, telling them all to go **** themselves. But she held her ground and her composure. I think that is a serious addition to her resume.

As Ed said, I'm not buying a used car from any of them, just as no one was going to have a beer with Bush Jr. We're electing a president of a country, not an aluminum siding contractor.

Grow up, Jon.


Ralph Nader has a message for worthless sellouts like you and slow eddy:

http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/x...alph_Nader.jpg

Yeah, right. Ralph ****ING Nader who threw a hissy fit and gave us 8 years of Bush Jr. Just the kind of guy an asshole like you would take voting advice from.



Worthless ****s like you and slow eddy forget about facts like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

Sit down and STFU, bitch.

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:27:04 AM UTC-8, rangerssuck wrote:

You may want to think about coming to grips with the almost certain reality that one of the current candidates WILL be the next president, and do what you can to get the one you choose into office. Otherwise, you're nothing but a lemming.

Larry Jackass and you are on the same planet... planet stupid.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:30:23 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:24:34 AM UTC-8, rangerssuck wrote:
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:50:00 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:58:15 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 7:33:24 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:56:57 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:

Because you really think that the US would be better off with with Trump or perhaps Christie in the Oval Office?

Hard to tell who lies more, slow eddy or Chris Christie:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lan-raise-you/

Last time I checked, Ed Huntress had not filed any paperwork to run for President of the US. I truly don't understand your obsession, but that obsession is yours to enjoy.

Meanwhile, your expressed intent to throw away your vote should Clinton win the nomination demonstrates a contempt for society. Nobody here really gives a damn about what you think, other than to use it against you.

NOBODY in the white house even cares whether you're alive except on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, every four years. And yet you are prepared to throw your vote away in protest. What a waste.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, Sometimes you go to the General election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you wanted to have.

I picture the POTUS in negotiations with Putin. Picturing any of the Republican candidates in such a situation is just chilling. I would think that Biden, Sanders or Clinton would do fine. Clinton really showed her stuff at last week's 11-hour Benghazi grilling. Had I been in her place, I expect I would have lost my cool very early in the game, telling them all to go **** themselves. But she held her ground and her composure. I think that is a serious addition to her resume.

As Ed said, I'm not buying a used car from any of them, just as no one was going to have a beer with Bush Jr. We're electing a president of a country, not an aluminum siding contractor.

Grow up, Jon.


Ralph Nader has a message for worthless sellouts like you and slow eddy:

http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/x...alph_Nader.jpg

Yeah, right. Ralph ****ING Nader who threw a hissy fit and gave us 8 years of Bush Jr. Just the kind of guy an asshole like you would take voting advice from.



Worthless ****s like you and slow eddy forget about facts like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

Sit down and STFU, bitch.

Florida, which is the state in which Ralph Nadar delivered the
election to G.W. Bush, didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000,
you ignorant moron.

Nadar's vote count was 181 times the spread between Bush and Gore.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy failed:

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:13:06 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy failed:

No, I nailed you for your nasty, sarcastic, ill-informed stupidity,
once again.

You really are a reckless moron, Bonkers.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy wrote:

Florida, which is the state in which Ralph Nadar delivered the
election to G.W. Bush, didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000,
you ignorant moron.

Nadar's vote count was 181 times the spread between Bush and Gore.

--
slow eddy

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:25:24 PM UTC-8, slow eddy wrote:

No, I nailed you for your nasty, sarcastic, ill-informed stupidity,
once again.

You really are a reckless moron, Bonkers.

--
slow eddy

You nailed only yourself you worthless lying fraud:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:30:26 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:25:24 PM UTC-8, slow eddy wrote:

No, I nailed you for your nasty, sarcastic, ill-informed stupidity,
once again.

You really are a reckless moron, Bonkers.

--
slow eddy

You nailed only yourself you worthless lying fraud:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

Ha-Ha! Bonkers, read the follow-ups. That one county's errors were
corrected the night of the election. And the erorr amounted to only
about 1/6 of the Nadar spread.

You're hangin your hat on a hangine chad. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:26:01 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy wrote:

Florida, which is the state in which Ralph Nadar delivered the
election to G.W. Bush, didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000,
you ignorant moron.

Nadar's vote count was 181 times the spread between Bush and Gore.

--
slow eddy

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

Too bad, Bonkers. You're reduced to one precinct in one county that
had an obvious error that was corrected right away. ""The error
cropped up in Volusia's 216th precinct of only 585 registered voters."
Florida had 5,963,110 voters in that election. You're talking about an
error, corrected immediately, that amounted to 1/100th of 1% of the
vote. Meantime, Nadar won 97,488 votes.

You're ****ing into the wind.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to cover up yet another one of his many lies and failed as he always does:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to cover up yet another one of his many lies and failed as he always does:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm


In the video link below Stephen Spoonamore, computer security guru, talks about election theft with voter machines.

In the video Stephen Spoonamore says a very strong argument can be made that that the 2000 election was electronically stolen. You need to ask yourself one question and one question only: Who do you believe, an expert like Stephen Spoonamore or a lying fraud like slow eddy that once again is pretending to be an exert on a subject he has no idea about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:54:33 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to cover up yet another one of his many lies and failed as he always does:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

"Florida" didn't. One county used Diebold machines -- with fewer than
600 votes in question.


The following link clearly shows ...

that Bonkers has trouble with arithmetic.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:33:38 PM UTC-8, slow eddy, the lying fraud, tried once again to cover up his lie and failed miserably:

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:06:41 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to cover up yet another one of his many lies and failed as he always does:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm


In the video link below Stephen Spoonamore, computer security guru, talks about election theft with voter machines.

In the video Stephen Spoonamore says a very strong argument can be made that that the 2000 election was electronically stolen. You need to ask yourself one question and one question only: Who do you believe, an expert like Stephen Spoonamore or a lying fraud like slow eddy that once again is pretending to be an exert on a subject he has no idea about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

So Bonkers, who has trouble counting, is saying that the 91,000
Florida votes for Nadar didn't throw the election to Bush, but that
fewer than 600 in Voluai County Fl -- WHICH WERE CORRECTED THE NIGHT
OF THE ELECTION -- did.

Maybe someone can find some basic arithmetic instructions for Bonkers

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:38:50 PM UTC-8, slow eddy, the lying fraud, tired his usual spin when nailed for lying and failed:

Nothing to respond to.

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:38:50 PM UTC-8, slow eddy, the worthless lying fraud, tired more spin to cover his lie and failed:

In the video link below Stephen Spoonamore, computer security guru, talks about election theft with voter machines.

In the video Stephen Spoonamore says a very strong argument can be made that that the 2000 election was electronically stolen. You need to ask yourself one question and one question only: Who do you believe, an expert like Stephen Spoonamore or a lying fraud like slow eddy that once again is pretending to be an exert on a subject he has no idea about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:38:50 PM UTC-8, slow eddy lied and failed:

slow eddy lies snipped

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:47:24 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:38:50 PM UTC-8, slow eddy, the lying fraud, tired his usual spin when nailed for lying and failed:

Nothing to respond to.

You blew it again, in other words. 'Cant do arithmetic. How are you
going to convince people you're a CAD/CAM guru, Bonkers if you can
add?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tired more spin to cover up the lie he's been nailed on and failed:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:49:46 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:38:50 PM UTC-8, slow eddy, the worthless lying fraud, tired more spin to cover his lie and failed:

In the video link below Stephen Spoonamore, computer security guru, talks about election theft with voter machines.


In the video Stephen Spoonamore says a very strong argument can be made that that the 2000 election was electronically stolen. You need to ask yourself one question and one question only: Who do you believe, an expert like Stephen Spoonamore or a lying fraud like slow eddy that once again is pretending to be an exert on a subject he has no idea about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

"A very strong argument"? Bonkers, you're talking about over 91,000
votes that went to Nader in Florida, and 568 votes in one county that
were in question, and you're fetid excuse for a mind has conflated
them to conclude that one error in one county in Florida, in a voting
precint that has 568 votes total, overcame Nader's 91,000 votes.

You've earned your nickname, Bonkers.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:47:26 PM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to try and apply spin to cover up his lie and failed:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:15:49 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:05:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tired more spin to cover up the lie he's been nailed on and failed:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

Let's see if we can penetrate your thick skull from another angle. The
precinct in Volusia County that was in question has 568 votes in
total. The error in the count was found the night of the election.

Meantime, Nader, who won over 97,000 votes in Florida, drew from Gore
almost 2:1 more than from Bush: "Among Nader voters, 45 percent said
they would have voted for Mr. Gore, 27 percent said they would have
voted for Mr. Bush, and the rest said they would not have voted."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/us...2000-math.html

Give it a shot, Bonkers. Let's see if you can do arithmetic.

That has nothing to do with Spoonemore's complaints about Diebold.
That was a simple spoiler job by Nader.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:47:26 PM UTC-8, slow eddy keeps failing. Here is why:


In the video link below Stephen Spoonamore, computer security guru, talks about election theft with voter machines.

In the video Stephen Spoonamore says a very strong argument can be made that that the 2000 election was electronically stolen.

You need to ask yourself one question and one question only:

Who do you believe, an expert like Stephen Spoonamore or a lying fraud like slow eddy that once again is pretending to be an exert on a subject he has no idea about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:54:10 PM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to try and back away from his outright lie by applying spin. As per usual slow eddy failed miserably:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:53:33 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:47:26 PM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to try and apply spin to cover up his lie and failed:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

Got a stuck needle again, Bonkers?

Here's the bottom line: Once the errors were discovered and corrected,
Gore + Nader were over 97,000 votes ahead of Bush. Unfortunately, all
of those votes belonged to Nader.

Thanks to Ralph Nader, we had the first four years of G.W. Bush, and
probably the second four, as well.

I realize that you're having trouble with the arithmetic, but you
can't get around those facts, because the vote counts are public
record.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:02:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to try and cover up his lie with worthless spin and failed:

slow eddy is a lying fraud who is stuck on stupid. slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:55:19 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:47:26 PM UTC-8, slow eddy keeps failing. Here is why:


In the video link below Stephen Spoonamore, computer security guru, talks about election theft with voter machines.

In the video Stephen Spoonamore says a very strong argument can be made that that the 2000 election was electronically stolen.


Somebody please help Bonkers with his arithmetic. He needs some
mentoring.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:02:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy keeps trying to cover up his lie and he keeps failing. Here is why:


In the video link below Stephen Spoonamore, computer security guru, talks about election theft with voter machines.

In the video Stephen Spoonamore says a very strong argument can be made that that the 2000 election was electronically stolen.

You need to ask yourself one question and one question only:

Who do you believe, an expert like Stephen Spoonamore or a lying fraud like slow eddy that once again is pretending to be an exert on a subject he has no idea about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:11:32 PM UTC-8, slow eddy lied:

More of the usual slow eddy lies snipped

slow eddy is a lying fraud who is stuck on stupid. slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:06:52 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:02:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to try and cover up his lie with worthless spin and failed:

slow eddy is a lying fraud who is stuck on stupid. slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

They didn't. The Florida Elections Commission had rejected them.
You're arguing about one county that used Diebold machines, which was
the source of all of the conspiracy theories between 2000 and 2004.

Mostly you're arguing about 2004.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:14:02 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:11:32 PM UTC-8, slow eddy lied:

More of the usual slow eddy lies snipped

Someone please help Bonkers with his math. He's losing his mind.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-8, slow eddy continued to try and cover up his lie and failed:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:06:41 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried
to cover up yet another one of his many lies and failed as he
always does:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant
moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm


In the video link below Stephen Spoonamore, computer security guru,
talks about election theft with voter machines.

In the video Stephen Spoonamore says a very strong argument can be
made that that the 2000 election was electronically stolen. You need
to ask yourself one question and one question only: Who do you
believe, an expert like Stephen Spoonamore or a lying fraud like
slow eddy that once again is pretending to be an exert on a subject
he has no idea about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

So Bonkers, who has trouble counting, is saying that the 91,000
Florida votes for Nadar didn't throw the election to Bush, but that
fewer than 600 in Voluai County Fl -- WHICH WERE CORRECTED THE NIGHT
OF THE ELECTION -- did.

Maybe someone can find some basic arithmetic instructions for
Bonkers

--
Ed Huntress

My father was among other jobs a NH election official. I remember
watching him help pack up the worn and troublesome paper ballot
machines for shipment after one election. When I asked where they were
going the men laughed and answered "Florida".

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-5, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:24:34 AM UTC-8, rangerssuck wrote:
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:50:00 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:58:15 PM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 7:33:24 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:56:57 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:

Because you really think that the US would be better off with with Trump or perhaps Christie in the Oval Office?

Hard to tell who lies more, slow eddy or Chris Christie:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lan-raise-you/

Last time I checked, Ed Huntress had not filed any paperwork to run for President of the US. I truly don't understand your obsession, but that obsession is yours to enjoy.

Meanwhile, your expressed intent to throw away your vote should Clinton win the nomination demonstrates a contempt for society. Nobody here really gives a damn about what you think, other than to use it against you.

NOBODY in the white house even cares whether you're alive except on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, every four years. And yet you are prepared to throw your vote away in protest. What a waste.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, Sometimes you go to the General election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you wanted to have.

I picture the POTUS in negotiations with Putin. Picturing any of the Republican candidates in such a situation is just chilling. I would think that Biden, Sanders or Clinton would do fine. Clinton really showed her stuff at last week's 11-hour Benghazi grilling. Had I been in her place, I expect I would have lost my cool very early in the game, telling them all to go **** themselves. But she held her ground and her composure. I think that is a serious addition to her resume.

As Ed said, I'm not buying a used car from any of them, just as no one was going to have a beer with Bush Jr. We're electing a president of a country, not an aluminum siding contractor.

Grow up, Jon.


Ralph Nader has a message for worthless sellouts like you and slow eddy:

http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/x...alph_Nader.jpg

Yeah, right. Ralph ****ING Nader who threw a hissy fit and gave us 8 years of Bush Jr. Just the kind of guy an asshole like you would take voting advice from.



Worthless ****s like you and slow eddy forget about facts like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

Sit down and STFU, bitch.

What in your world do easily hacked electronic voting machines have to do with hanging and pregnant chad and a corrupt Supreme Court of the US?

Had Nader not split the Democratic vote throughout the US, Gore would have been an undisputed winner, with our without Florida. Nader's big ****ing ego cost us 8 years of Bush. Your guy, Bernie Sanders, fully understands this and has said that if he doesn't receive the nomination of the Democratic Party, he will absolutely support whoever does, and will under no circumstances run against the party candidate.

Do I think the two party system sucks? Yes I do.
Do I think we should have "instant runoff" or "second choice" elections? Yes I do.

BUT, we are, for the moment, stuck with the two party system and without instant runoff elections. Therefore, I will, just like Sanders, support whoever gets the Democratic nomination. There isn't a Republican candidate who is even remotely capable of doing this job.

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 7:13:13 PM UTC-5, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8, slow eddy failed:

So, Jon, for months you've been using that same "slow eddy failed" line. I have a question that I hope you'll answer without turning it into an attack on me... Failed at what?

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:31:23 PM UTC-5, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 11:27:04 AM UTC-8, rangerssuck wrote:

You may want to think about coming to grips with the almost certain reality that one of the current candidates WILL be the next president, and do what you can to get the one you choose into office. Otherwise, you're nothing but a lemming.

Larry Jackass and you are on the same planet... planet stupid.

Read very carefully my response to your earlier attack on me. You'll find that I agree with your guy (Bernie Sanders), and you apparently do not. Are you saying now that, because Sanders agrees completely with precisely the line of mine that you quoted above, he is also a resident of "planet stupid?"

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 5:06:44 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to cover up yet another one of his many lies and failed as he always does:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm


In the video link below Stephen Spoonamore, computer security guru, talks about election theft with voter machines.

In the video Stephen Spoonamore says a very strong argument can be made that that the 2000 election was electronically stolen. You need to ask yourself one question and one question only: Who do you believe, an expert like Stephen Spoonamore or a lying fraud like slow eddy that once again is pretending to be an exert on a subject he has no idea about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

Bump

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to cover up yet another one of his many lies and failed as he always does:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

Bump

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:53:55 PM UTC-5, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-8, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:45:03 PM UTC-8, slow eddy tried to cover up yet another one of his many lies and failed as he always does:

slow eddy lied when he said:

"didn't use electronic voting machines in 2000, you ignorant moron."

The following link clearly shows just how badly slow eddy lies:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

Bump

None of that addresses the fact that had Ralph Nader not run, the presidency would have gone to Gore, regardless of any Florida shenanigans.

Bernie Sanders knows that, and he's acting accordingly.