On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 1:21:06 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

You'd really prefer a Republican over Hillary? Sanders has said that if he does not get the Democratic nomination, he will fully support whoever does. But you seriously wouldn't?

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:

You'd really prefer a Republican over Hillary? Sanders has said that if he does not get the Democratic nomination, he will fully support whoever does. But you seriously wouldn't?

I would support someone selected at random from the Boston phone directory before Hillary.

We have a lot of data where the Clinton's look shady. From White Water to cattle futures to pardons at the end of Bill's term. Hard to say how involved Hillary is, but she certainly keeps shady company, and she could be the one behind some of what is attributed to Bill. She thinks the rules only apply to the little people. Not using the government system for emails show that.

I would vote for Bernie before Hillary , and most of the Republicans before Hillary. If the choice is between Hillary and some of the Republicans, I might not vote.

Dan

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:24:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:39:00 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:

You'd really prefer a Republican over Hillary? Sanders has said that if he does not get the Democratic nomination, he will fully support whoever does. But you seriously wouldn't?

I would support someone selected at random from the Boston phone directory before Hillary.

We have a lot of data where the Clinton's look shady. From White Water to cattle futures to pardons at the end of Bill's term. Hard to say how involved Hillary is, but she certainly keeps shady company, and she could be the one behind some of what is attributed to Bill. She thinks the rules only apply to the little people. Not using the government system for emails show that.

I would vote for Bernie before Hillary , and most of the Republicans before Hillary. If the choice is between Hillary and some of the Republicans, I might not vote.

Dan

Why should anyone care if her personal dealings are shady? Just
askin'...

Reagan traded arms for hostages; Nixon played dirty tricks; Kennedy's
family made its money bootlegging. And so on.

You've got to be an egomaniac to run for president, and you have to be
comfortable pushing envelopes -- or sometimes pushing beyond. I long
since stopped worrying about their personal rectitude. I vote for
competency, human respect, and goals.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:07:12 AM UTC-7, slow eddy wrote:

Why should anyone care if her personal dealings are shady? Just
askin'...

Reagan traded arms for hostages; Nixon played dirty tricks; Kennedy's
family made its money bootlegging. And so on.

You've got to be an egomaniac to run for president, and you have to be
comfortable pushing envelopes -- or sometimes pushing beyond. I long
since stopped worrying about their personal rectitude. I vote for
competency, human respect, and goals.

--
slow eddy


slow eddy votes for worthless, entrenched Democrats like Hillary Clinton.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:20:29 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:07:12 AM UTC-7, slow eddy wrote:

Why should anyone care if her personal dealings are shady? Just
askin'...

Reagan traded arms for hostages; Nixon played dirty tricks; Kennedy's
family made its money bootlegging. And so on.

You've got to be an egomaniac to run for president, and you have to be
comfortable pushing envelopes -- or sometimes pushing beyond. I long
since stopped worrying about their personal rectitude. I vote for
competency, human respect, and goals.

--
slow eddy


slow eddy votes for worthless, entrenched Democrats like Hillary Clinton.

You don't know who I vote for, you lying, shiftless, four-flushing
asshole. I've been a registered Republican for over a quarter-century,
to begin with.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:20:34 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

and if next November's ballot is Hillary vs a Republican, you'll vote for whom?

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:07:12 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why should anyone care if her personal dealings are shady? Just
askin'...

Well I guess you would feel comfortable buying a used car from someone whose personal dealings are shady.


Reagan traded arms for hostages; Nixon played dirty tricks; Kennedy's
family made its money bootlegging. And so on.

You've got to be an egomaniac to run for president, and you have to be
comfortable pushing envelopes -- or sometimes pushing beyond. I long
since stopped worrying about their personal rectitude. I vote for
competency, human respect, and goals.


Exactly what do you think human respect is?


--
Ed Huntress

If the Devil himself ran against Hillary, I would vote for the devil.

i

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:25:59 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

You don't know who I vote for, you lying, shiftless, four-flushing
asshole. I've been a registered Republican for over a quarter-century,
to begin with.

--
Ed Huntress

You are correct I do not know who you vote for. Being a registered Republican is pretty meaningless. It is who you support and vote for that counts.

Dan

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:48:29 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus1553 wrote:
If the Devil himself ran against Hillary, I would vote for the devil.

i

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

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:49:54 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:25:59 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

You don't know who I vote for, you lying, shiftless, four-flushing
asshole. I've been a registered Republican for over a quarter-century,
to begin with.

--
Ed Huntress

You are correct I do not know who you vote for.

I wasn't talking about you. That was a reply to Bonkers.

Being a registered Republican is pretty meaningless. It is who you support and vote for that counts.

The Moderate Republicans shall rise again. d8-) Meantime, the first
cut is to eliminate the crazies. Next the con men; next the panderers;
and so on, until someone is left standing.

It doesn't look encouraging at the moment. But I could, and have, vote
for someone of either party. It depends on the overall political
situation and on the individual candidate.

--
Ed Huntress


Dan

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:07:12 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why should anyone care if her personal dealings are shady? Just
askin'...

Well I guess you would feel comfortable buying a used car from someone whose personal dealings are shady.

I'm not buying for a used car. I'm voting for someone to lead the
country.



Reagan traded arms for hostages; Nixon played dirty tricks; Kennedy's
family made its money bootlegging. And so on.

You've got to be an egomaniac to run for president, and you have to be
comfortable pushing envelopes -- or sometimes pushing beyond. I long
since stopped worrying about their personal rectitude. I vote for
competency, human respect, and goals.


Exactly what do you think human respect is?

Respect for people, as people. For example, Romney told us he didn't
care about 47% of the American people.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:56:57 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:

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

Lord, please do not let the vote be between Trump and Hillary.

Dan

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:27:40 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:56:57 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:

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

Lord, please do not let the vote be between Trump and Hillary.

Dan

What? You don't want your free bottle of Dr. Trump's Mystery Snake
Oil?

I'm waiting for him to run the full medicine show gig at his next town
hall, with endorsements from Chief Thundercloud and Peg-leg Sam, with
an Annie Oakley look-alike to shoot a gopher off his head (while
leaving the nest intact), and Buffalo Bill riding his horse through
the crowd, tossing out hats that say "Make America's Sharpshooters
Great Again..."

If we just stick with him for a while, I think the show will get a lot
better.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:33:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

What? You don't want your free bottle of Dr. Trump's Mystery Snake
Oil?


i am equally against " I did not know " Hillary.

Dan


Ed Huntress

On 10/30/2015 12:24 PM, wrote:

I would support someone selected at random from the Boston phone directory before Hillary.
Dan


One of my best political theories is that ALL public offices shall be
filled by picking out random names from the phone book and all get one
term. We would be sooo much better off!

On 10/30/2015 1:07 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why should anyone care if her personal dealings are shady? Just
askin'...


She'd be a great president...IF...she'd only use her powers for good!
Just like Skeletor or Lex Luthor. To bad, they just can't do it.

On 10/30/2015 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:25:59 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

You don't know who I vote for, you lying, shiftless, four-flushing
asshole. I've been a registered Republican for over a
quarter-century, to begin with.

-- Ed Huntress

You are correct I do not know who you vote for. Being a registered
Republican is pretty meaningless. It is who you support and vote for
that counts.

Dan



I registered as a Democrat in '73 'cuz that was the thing to do as a
freshman at OU, a very liberal college. I'm financially conservative
yet socially liberal. I think Ed's close to a mirror image in a lot of
ways and I bet neither of us vote straight D or R.

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:25:59 AM UTC-7, slow eddy lied:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:49:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:25:59 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

You don't know who I vote for, you lying, shiftless, four-flushing
asshole. I've been a registered Republican for over a quarter-century,
to begin with.

--
Ed Huntress

You are correct I do not know who you vote for. Being a registered Republican is pretty meaningless. It is who you support and vote for that counts.

Dan

Exactly.

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:57:28 AM UTC-7, slow eddy failed:


The Moderate Republicans shall rise again. d8-) Meantime, the first
cut is to eliminate the crazies. Next the con men; next the panderers;
and so on, until someone is left standing.

It doesn't look encouraging at the moment. But I could, and have, vote
for someone of either party. It depends on the overall political
situation and on the individual candidate.

--
slow eddy


Dan


slow eddy likes RINO's.

slow eddy likes entrenched Dems.

slow eddy loves liars like Chris Christie.

slow eddy supports corporate puppets.

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:34:40 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:20:34 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

and if next November's ballot is Hillary vs a Republican, you'll vote for whom?

Neither. I'd write in someone. There is no one in the GOP I feel I can support right now. RWNJ's will need to destroy the GOP so it can be rebuilt with Barry Goldwater principles and ethics.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:52:46 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:34:40 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:20:34 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

and if next November's ballot is Hillary vs a Republican, you'll vote for whom?

Neither. I'd write in someone.

Oh, now *that's* smart -- make your vote irrelevant. Then you can go
sit in a corner and pout.

Why don't you write in yourself, Bonkers? heh, heh...

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:42:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:33:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

What? You don't want your free bottle of Dr. Trump's Mystery Snake
Oil?


i am equally against " I did not know " Hillary.

Dan

Hmm...I didn't realize this was a personality contest. I thought it
was about running the executive branch of government.

I guess things have changed.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 2:13:25 PM UTC-7, slow eddy failed:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:57:55 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 10/30/2015 1:07 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why should anyone care if her personal dealings are shady? Just
askin'...


She'd be a great president...IF...she'd only use her powers for good!
Just like Skeletor or Lex Luthor. To bad, they just can't do it.

I'm not about to get into a debate about this gang of candidates. I'll
just comment that I think we have pretty slim pickings to choose from,
and I'll probably go with the one who I think won't drag us into
another great depression or blow up the Middle East. Meantime, I've
watched every debate so far and feel like I've largely wasted my time.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:03:45 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 10/30/2015 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:25:59 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

You don't know who I vote for, you lying, shiftless, four-flushing
asshole. I've been a registered Republican for over a
quarter-century, to begin with.

-- Ed Huntress

You are correct I do not know who you vote for. Being a registered
Republican is pretty meaningless. It is who you support and vote for
that counts.

Dan



I registered as a Democrat in '73 'cuz that was the thing to do as a
freshman at OU, a very liberal college. I'm financially conservative
yet socially liberal. I think Ed's close to a mirror image in a lot of
ways and I bet neither of us vote straight D or R.

It's true that I never vote straight-ticket, except for local
elections. There is only one party here and the Republicans toss a
bunch of losers into the ring, in a human sacrifice.

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
On 10/30/2015 12:24 PM, wrote:

I would support someone selected at random from the Boston phone
directory before Hillary.
Dan


One of my best political theories is that ALL public offices shall
be filled by picking out random names from the phone book and all
get one term. We would be sooo much better off!


Would you vote for any R.C.M. regular for president?

$1000 will get anyone onto the NH primary ballot.

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

Hmm...I didn't realize this was a personality contest. I thought it
was about running the executive branch of government.

I guess things have changed.

--
Ed Huntress

I do not think that Hillary has demonstrated any ability in running a executive branch of the government. She racked up lots of miles as Secretary of State, but what did she actually accomplish.

My sister went to a function where Hillary was the speaker. All the people she was with thought Hillary made a great speach, but later could not think of anything she said.

In other words she wins on personality, but not on executive skills.

Dan

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:50:55 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

Hmm...I didn't realize this was a personality contest. I thought it
was about running the executive branch of government.

I guess things have changed.

--
Ed Huntress

I do not think that Hillary has demonstrated any ability in running a executive branch of the government. She racked up lots of miles as Secretary of State, but what did she actually accomplish.

My sister went to a function where Hillary was the speaker. All the people she was with thought Hillary made a great speach, but later could not think of anything she said.

In other words she wins on personality, but not on executive skills.

Dan

Gee, there's a good anecdotal source for deciding who to vote for
president.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-7, slow eddy lied and failed:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:01:58 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-7, slow eddy lied and failed:

Pfhhht. Bonkers forgot to check his tank again, and ran out of gas.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 2:33:45 PM UTC-7, slow eddy wrote:

I'm not about to get into a debate about this gang of candidates. I'll
just comment that I think we have pretty slim pickings to choose from,
and I'll probably go with the one who I think won't drag us into
another great depression or blow up the Middle East. Meantime, I've
watched every debate so far and feel like I've largely wasted my time.

--
slow eddy

Wrong. The GOP debates are right on your level.

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:03:33 PM UTC-7, slow eddy lied:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:03:44 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 2:33:45 PM UTC-7, slow eddy wrote:

I'm not about to get into a debate about this gang of candidates. I'll
just comment that I think we have pretty slim pickings to choose from,
and I'll probably go with the one who I think won't drag us into
another great depression or blow up the Middle East. Meantime, I've
watched every debate so far and feel like I've largely wasted my time.

--
slow eddy

Wrong. The GOP debates are right on your level.

....while Bonkers propagandizes for a socialist...

Again, Jonny, ol' Bernie is right up your alley. If you can get him in
there, you'll get *something* out of the deal. He has a lot of
sympathy for people who have no opportunities left.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:05:50 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:03:33 PM UTC-7, slow eddy lied:

....the float is clanging in Jonny's float bowl...

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:06:05 PM UTC-7, slow eddy, the lying fraud, failed again:


slow eddy is far too dumb to know the difference between a democratic socialist and a socialist:

http://billmoyers.com/2015/07/03/soc...-100-american/

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:07:04 PM UTC-7, slow eddy, the lying fraud, failed:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:10:00 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:07:04 PM UTC-7, slow eddy, the lying fraud, failed:

Your needle is stuck, Bonkers. You've been stuck in that groove for
years.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:08:58 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:06:05 PM UTC-7, slow eddy, the lying fraud, failed again:


slow eddy is far too dumb to know the difference between a democratic socialist and a socialist:

http://billmoyers.com/2015/07/03/soc...-100-american/

Oh, I know what they are. Either way, you win: It's a great program
for losers.

--
Ed Huntress