Is Donald Trump your president?

[Rudy Canoza]

This handy flow chart will help you determine if Trump is your president
or not.

https://scontent.fsnc1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15193540_10206120042520532_7970718421897511415_n.jpg?oh=25be833a81f4910d5eab61f25c4417f2&oe=58B48D70

or http://tinyurl.com/hqgfrhh

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/23/2016 11:06 AM, Ted wrote:

> Thanks Rudy. I confess that I too was confused, but that chart cleared it up for me.

Oh, and just in case that didn't fully clear it up:

https://scontent.fsnc1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15134595_10206312015233705_5391505507505670018_n.jpg?oh=ba59822a689c5243edd644439a243c03&oe=58C673DA

or http://tinyurl.com/h45loxw

[M.I.Wakefield]

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:%dmZz.25264$YA2....@fx16.iad...

> On 11/23/2016 11:06 AM, Ted wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:14:15 PM UTC, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> This handy flow chart will help you determine if Trump is your
> >> president
> >> or not.
> >>
> >> https://scontent.fsnc1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15193540_10206120042520532_7970718421897511415_n.jpg?oh=25be833a81f4910d5eab61f25c4417f2&oe=58B48D70
> >>
> >> or http://tinyurl.com/hqgfrhh
> >
> > Thanks Rudy. I confess that I too was confused, but that chart cleared
> > it up for me.

And regardless of which box you ended up in, you should want him to have a
successful term. Because the alternative is worrying.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 12:48 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> you should want him to have a successful term.

You should mind your own Canuckleheaded beeswax, you lying hoser.

[Rudy Canoza]

I disagree with that. I want every bad policy that he might attempt to
enact not to be enacted. In other words, I want him to *fail* at every
bad and wrong thing he wants to do.

Do you remember when Limbaugh said the same thing about Obama in 2008?

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a
response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”
(interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point.
Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh,
you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new,
what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism
is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to
the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the
Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media
headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.”
Somebody’s gotta say it.

Statist collectivism (what Limbaugh mistakenly calls "liberalism") is
one our problems. So is Trumpism. I hope Trumpism fails.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by stupid "kiddo" easily repaired]

On 11/23/2016 11:50 AM, Matt Telles - "kiddo", and a career-long
salaried employee - blabbered stupidly:

> No, he's not my President.

He is, of course, your president, "kiddo."

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by stupid "kiddo" easily repaired]

On 11/23/2016 12:20 PM, Matt Telles - "kiddo", and a career-long

salaried employee - blabbered stupidly:

> Only idiots

You and your third grade class, "kiddo." Yes.

<chuckle>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/23/2016 12:26 PM, DoD wrote:
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
> news:K7mZz.25262$YA2...@fx16.iad...

>> On 11/23/2016 11:06 AM, Ted wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:14:15 PM UTC, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>> Thanks Rudy. I confess that I too was confused, but that chart
>>> cleared it up for me.
>>

>> You can count on me, Ted - I'm always looking out for you.
>
> LOL.... Are you looking out for me as well, Rudolf?

As a compassionate and generous man, I try to look out for most people,
especially during the holidays.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:uHmZz.5641$Cx7....@fx11.iad...

Define Trumpism, Rudolf....

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by stupid "kiddo" easily repaired]

On 11/23/2016 12:30 PM, Matt Telles - "kiddo", and a career-long

salaried employee - blabbered stupidly:

> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:24:52 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:20:54 PM UTC-5, Matt wrote:

>>> Only idiots are sure of anything.
>>
>> And Øbama was 'sure' insurance premiums were going to go down by $2500 per family.
>>
>>>
>>> You seem very sure of things.
>>>
>>> Matt
>
> Another

Another childish, inconsequential blurt from "kiddo."

<chuckle>

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:y4nZz.130747$OG2....@fx40.iad...

Do you think the liberals have any chance of overturning this election like
they are wanting?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/23/2016 12:37 PM, DoD wrote:
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
> news:y4nZz.130747$OG2....@fx40.iad...
>> On 11/23/2016 12:26 PM, DoD wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
>>> news:K7mZz.25262$YA2...@fx16.iad...
>>>> On 11/23/2016 11:06 AM, Ted wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:14:15 PM UTC, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> This handy flow chart will help you determine if Trump is your
>>>>>> president
>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://scontent.fsnc1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15193540_10206120042520532_7970718421897511415_n.jpg?oh=25be833a81f4910d5eab61f25c4417f2&oe=58B48D70
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or http://tinyurl.com/hqgfrhh
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Rudy. I confess that I too was confused, but that chart
>>>>> cleared it up for me.
>>>>
>>>> You can count on me, Ted - I'm always looking out for you.
>>>
>>> LOL.... Are you looking out for me as well, Rudolf?
>>
>> As a compassionate and generous man, I try to look out for most
>> people, especially during the holidays.
>
> Do you think the liberals have any chance of overturning this election
> like they are wanting?

Sure, two chances: Slim, and None...and Slim just stepped on a banana peel.

Yes, there is a non-zero chance it could be overturned. That chance is
minuscule.

[Rudy Canoza]

Anti-trade, anti-immigration, pro-Russian, wishing to abrogate mutual
security treaties, fostering a culture of animosity toward minorities.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

Agreed.

Now they'll try even harder.

12-19-16 - D DAY.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:I9nZz.130751$OG2....@fx40.iad...

Why do they make so much noise? Why doesn't Clinton and Obama lecture them
about
peaceful transfer of power and respect the outcome of the elections, like
they did to conservatives?

[Rudy Canoza]

Obama *has* done exactly that.

http://www.wsj.com/video/president-obama-urges-peaceful-transition-of-power/26F77F3A-417F-44F7-AA38-5A425C5C34E8.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/obama-promises-peaceful-transition-of-power-to-donald-trump
http://time.com/4564787/president-obama-congratulates-donald-trump-calls-for-peaceful-transition-of-power/

You, being acutely and chronically afflicted with Obama Derangement
Syndrome, predictably missed it.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 1:53 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Why doesn't Clinton and Obama lecture
>> them about
>> peaceful transfer of power and respect the outcome of the elections,
>> like they did to conservatives?
>
> Obama *has* done exactly that.

BULLSHIT LIE!

He has lectured TRUMP on how to behave!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/16/donald-trump-and-the-authentic-black-swan-event/


The election of Donald Trump as president has been regarded by some as a
black swan event: an extremely rare occurrence so unexpected and
consequential that it generates stunning changes in the existing order.
But in retrospect, the election of Mr. Trump is not the black swan event.
No, the election of Barack Obama was the seismic aberration.
And the triumph of Mr. Trump is the national self-correction back to the
center-right, a state of normalcy, and most importantly, to the
country’s natural and rightful exceptionalism.
It turns out that Mr. Trump is the rule, while Mr. Obama was the
anomalous exception.
The Obama cult of personality was built primarily on five things: the
dynamism of the man, the power of his personal story, the change he
represented (generational, political, racial), the emotional draw of
white guilt, and the call on the American heart for idealism. The
Clintons, quickly cast out as the old brand, were replaced by the new
Obama brand that promised a different kind of politics.
He was brilliant, savvy, charismatic and a superb rhetorician who knew
how to win. Perhaps even more importantly, as the first viable black
candidate for president, he allowed white America to believe it had
advanced toward vanquishing racism once and for all in the ultimate
feel-good moment.
Mr. Obama had never expressed an unadulterated love for America, only
deep critiques of its racial divides, social and economic injustices,
and bullying ways in the world. His detached persona mirrored a
detachment from fundamental American values.
It helped that he was cool, as in “hip,” but he was also cool as in
“unflappable,” which came in handy as he led the leftist revolution. How
could someone that seemingly rational want to radicalize the United
States? Most people would not believe the truth about him and his
motives — until it was too late.
Once he was sworn in as president, however, the American people took a
backseat to his redistributionist agenda. After all, the people weren’t
critical to his plans. In fact, we were an impediment to them, something
to be finessed, lied to and manipulated. As Jon Stewart aptly noted in
Rolling Stone in fall 2011, “I think he was already kind of over us by
the time he got into office.”
To Mr. Obama, any public disapproval of his plans needed to be removed
or crushed. Campaigning as a transcendent figure and governing as a
committed redistributionist involved two different skill sets. Once he
became president, the unifying, amber-lit guy disappeared and was
replaced by the guy who slapped down Republican congressional leaders
and the American people with a curt “I won” and a relentless forward
march toward executive actions and strictly party line dictates.
As time passed, the Obama hypnosis began to wear off and the
redistributionists’ agenda ripened. Pretty soon, “stimulus,” omnibus
spending, bailouts, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank financial regulation, and
suffocating regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency and
National Labor Relations Board were no longer the dynamic new policies
of the hip president but the destructive policies of a president bent on
deconstructing America. Despite his assurances that he’d deliver glowing
economic results, he instead produced crippling economic weakness.
Within a few months of their takeover, the Democrats’ casualties began
to pile up. In November 2009, voters in deep-blue New Jersey and purple
Virginia elected Republican governors. In January 2010, voters in even
bluer Massachusetts elected a Republican senator, Scott Brown, to
replace Edward Kennedy. In November 2010, voters across the country
swept Republicans into control of the House and closer to control of the
Senate, which they ultimately delivered in another Republican-sweep
year, 2014.
Last week, the voters delivered the final coup de grace to Mr. Obama and
his agenda, by turning control of the White House, the Senate and House
and about two-thirds of the nation’s governorships and state
legislatures over to Republicans.
Shortly after he was elected, Mr. Obama and his supporters in the
political class told us that he had redrawn the political map by
creating a new, long-term Democrat majority. Instead, by ramming through
his leftist agenda, he decimated his party and created the conditions
for its complete reversal. And he gave rise to a Republican populist who
has already succeeding in redrawing the political map in ways that
threaten the Democrats’ long-term viability.
That is a supreme irony, and perhaps his real legacy.
After being led on this long detour into the desert by a faux political
Moses in Mr. Obama, we are now being led out of it by a more improbable
but authentic political Moses in Donald Trump.
And while the actual black swan event is coming to its end, the guy from
Queens, N.Y., is already beginning to restore our equilibrium.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:6lnZz.130756$OG2....@fx40.iad...

I must have missed it because it didn't happen...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-17/obama-says-he-won-t-call-on-anti-trump-protesters-to-be-silent
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/president-obama-refuses-to-tell-protesters-to-stay-silent.html

[Rudy Canoza]

It did happen, of course. You missed it because you're a right-wing
knuckle-dragger with acute and chronic Obama Derangement Syndrome - just
as I said.

>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-17/obama-says-he-won-t-call-on-anti-trump-protesters-to-be-silent

Why should he? Protesting Trump's election isn't violent, and it is
their inherent right to protest it.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 2:10 PM, DoD wrote:
>>
>> You, being acutely and chronically afflicted with Obama Derangement
>> Syndrome, predictably missed it.
>
> I must have missed it because it didn't happen...

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 2:24 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> I must have missed it because it didn't happen...
>
> It did happen, of course. You missed it because you're a right-wing
> knuckle-dragger with acute and chronic Obama Derangement Syndrome - just
> as I said.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:PNnZz.48854$mI2....@fx08.iad...

Earth to Rudolf.... Hello, liberals are violent... Portland?

[Rudy Canoza]

non sequitur, and a lie as well. Not *all* "liberals" are violent.
Hillary Clinton got over 62.2 million votes (and still counting.) How
many people did anything violent in Portland or anywhere else due to the
election result? A tiny handful, that's how many.

But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call for a
peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course, call for a
peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by stupid knuckle-dragging shitbag easily repaired]

On 11/23/2016 1:50 PM, DoD wrote:
>
>
> "Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
> news:abfee7a3-2c64-4023...@googlegroups.com...

>> You watch too much MSNBC.
>
> Yeah, Rudolf must be seeing a different Donald Trump....

No, I'm observing the one-and-only. I never watch MSNBC.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:ldoZz.84590$dF2....@fx44.iad...

> On 11/23/2016 1:35 PM, DoD wrote:
>>

>>> Why should he? Protesting Trump's election isn't violent, and it is
>>> their inherent right to protest it.
>>
>> Earth to Rudolf.... Hello, liberals are violent...
>
> non sequitur, and a lie as well. Not *all* "liberals" are violent.

A lot of them are and they can be whipped up in a frenzy by Democrat
operatives, that thanks to Veritas, we do know exist.

> Hillary Clinton got over 62.2 million votes (and still counting.) How
> many people did anything violent in Portland or anywhere else due to the
> election result? A tiny handful, that's how many.

If the exact same thing was happening, with the exact same amount
of Trumpers after his loss, you would be saying Trump protesters are
violent.

> But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call for a
> peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course, call for a
> peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.

He doesn't have to at this point. He knows what he is doing. Subtly stroking
the
fires.... Very calculated. That you think I don't realize that is telling on
you, Rudolf.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:afoZz.84592$dF2....@fx44.iad...

From what I have been seeing, he is not what people were saying he was going
to be, e.g. vindictive
towards people that didn't support him and heck even Hillary... So far he
has been cool as a cucumber
and I like his picks (generally) so far. I love it that he is playing games
and ticking off the media.... They
absolutely deserve it.... and I am loving him sticking it to them....

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 2:53 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Earth to Rudolf.... Hello, liberals are violent...
>
> non sequitur, and a lie as well.

Nope fact = proved dozens times in the past week in riots all over
America, Jonathan Ball.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 2:59 PM, Ted wrote:

> Is Trump really against minorities?

Nope, he's pro LGBT.

> What's bad about Russia?


What about em?

[Zinger]

Also wanting to know why Rudy/Dipstick has time to post 24 hours a day?
Someone else must be doing his food stamp shopping.
>


--
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

[Zinger]

On 11/23/2016 3:59 PM, Ted wrote:

> Is Trump really against minorities?
>

> What's bad about Russia?

Why? Are you and Rudy Russian minorities?

[First-Post]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:59:29 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Is Trump really against minorities?
>
>What's bad about Russia?

If you actually pay attention to Trumps stated views on trade, he is
against trade deals like a lot of the ones we currently have that puts
the US on the shit end of the stick. His stated views on immigration
are concerning the open border policies that Obama and the democrats
have put in place that has pretty much thrown proper, legal
immigration out the window. His statement regarding the muslim
refugees revolves around proper vetting of those refugees and only
placing a moratorium on such until a better vetting plan can be put
into place.
As far as Russia goes, Where the hell was Canoza when Hillary was
being instrumental in making the big uranium deal that pretty much
gave Russia control of a large chunk of that industry in North
America?

"At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian
mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable
endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of
that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a
company that would become known as Uranium One.
Continue reading the main story

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the
world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium
production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered
a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal
had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a
number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that
eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr.
Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

However, when it comes to general trade, there is nothing wrong with
the US trading with Russia when it comes to retail and wholesale
consumer goods. There are a lot of US companies that have been
involved with Russia ever since the wall came down and the break up of
the old U.S.S.R.

"In terms of trade in goods, Russia was the United States’ 29th
largest export market and the 20th largest exporter to the United
States in 2014. Russia was the United States’ 25th largest
trading-partner overall. U.S. exports to Russia in 2014 were $10.8
billion, a decrease of 3.3% from 2013. Russian exports to the United
States in 2014 were $23.7 billion, a decrease of 12.5% from 2013.
Russia’s leading individual trading partners are China, the
Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Japan, United States, Ukraine,
South Korea, and Poland."
http://2016.export.gov/russia/doingbusinessinrussia/index.asp

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/23/2016 1:59 PM, Ted wrote:

> Is Trump really against minorities?

No.

> What's bad about Russia?

It's an aggressive state headed by a dictator with a propensity to
invade its neighboring countries. Trump threatens to sue his critics in
the press; Putin literally locks them up.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/23/2016 2:02 PM, Yak wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:54:08 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> On 11/23/2016 1:36 PM, Yak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:43:34 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>> You watch too much MSNBC.
>>

>> I never watch MSNBC.
>>
>> My characterization of Trumpism is 100% correct, although I don't
>> pretend that it's exhaustive. There are more aspects to it, most of
>> them bad.
>
> No, your characterization of him are mere generalizations in need of context.

They don't need any more context than the loud bragging about what a
shitbag he is that Trump himself does.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/23/2016 2:06 PM, DoD wrote:
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
> news:ldoZz.84590$dF2....@fx44.iad...
>> On 11/23/2016 1:35 PM, DoD wrote:
>>>
>
>>>> Why should he? Protesting Trump's election isn't violent, and it is
>>>> their inherent right to protest it.
>>>
>>> Earth to Rudolf.... Hello, liberals are violent...
>>
>> non sequitur, and a lie as well. Not *all* "liberals" are violent.
>
> A lot of them are and

A minuscule minority are, liar.

>> Hillary Clinton got over 62.2 million votes (and still counting.) How
>> many people did anything violent in Portland or anywhere else due to
>> the election result? A tiny handful, that's how many.
>
> If the exact same thing was happening, with the exact same amount
> of Trumpers after his loss, you would be saying Trump protesters are
> violent.

Wrong.

>> But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call for a
>> peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course, call for
>> a peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.
>
> He doesn't have to at this point. He knows what he is doing. Subtly

> stroking [sic] thefires....

*stoking*, you fucking illiterate knuckle-dragging moron. And no, he
isn't. *Nothing* he has done can reasonably be said to be condoning,
let alone encouraging, a violent reaction. You're just lying when you
say that.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jeff Sessions is a disaster - completely beyond the pale. He is unfit
to hold any office. John Bolton would be a disaster if appointed to
anything. Rudy Giuliani would be a disaster. The rest are passable.

[Rudy Canoza]

> Also wanting to know why Rudy has time to post 24 hours a day?

I don't post 24 hours a day.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by stupid cocksucking shitbag "Gak" easily repaired]

On 11/23/2016 3:30 PM, Yak wrote:

> Actually, it does need context because it makes no sense to perpetuate untruths.

There are no untruths in what I wrote. Everything I said to
characterize Trumpism is true - every word of it.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 4:12 PM, Zinger wrote:
> Also wanting to know why Rudy/Dipstick has time to post 24 hours a day?

His name is Jonathan Ball.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 4:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jeff Sessions is a disaster -

Not according to his record in the Senate and as AG.

YOU are little Jonathan Ball, appraiser weeb.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 4:29 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> Also wanting to know why Rudy has time to post 24 hours a day?
>
> I don't post 24 hours a day.

Make it 20 then...

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by stupid cocksucking shitbag "Gak" easily repaired]

On 11/23/2016 3:51 PM, Yak wrote:

> Naw, you pretty much got it all wrong.

I got every word of it right, of course.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 4:38 PM, Ted wrote:
>> Trump threatens to sue his critics in the
>> press; Putin literally locks them up.

> I see. Thanks, Rudy.

He did get that one right.

[Just Wondering]

On 11/23/2016 1:08 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 11/23/2016 11:48 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:%dmZz.25264$YA2....@fx16.iad...
>>
>>> On 11/23/2016 11:06 AM, Ted wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:14:15 PM UTC, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> >> This handy flow chart will help you determine if Trump is your >>
>>> president
>>> >> or not.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://scontent.fsnc1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15193540_10206120042520532_7970718421897511415_n.jpg?oh=25be833a81f4910d5eab61f25c4417f2&oe=58B48D70
>>>
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> or http://tinyurl.com/hqgfrhh
>>> >
>>> > Thanks Rudy. I confess that I too was confused, but that chart
>>> cleared > it up for me.
>>
>> And regardless of which box you ended up in, you should want him to have
>> a successful term. Because the alternative is worrying.
>
> I disagree with that. I want every bad policy that he might attempt to
> enact not to be enacted. In other words, I want him to *fail* at every
> bad and wrong thing he wants to do.
>
> Do you remember when Limbaugh said the same thing about Obama in 2008?
>

I remember Obama boo-hooing that Congress blocked his economic
proposals, then crowing that the economy is great, not recognizing
the dichotomy of those two statements.

[Just Wondering]

On 11/23/2016 1:43 PM, Rudy "kiddo" Canoza wrote:
> On 11/23/2016 12:36 PM, DoD wrote:

>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2016 11:48 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And regardless of which box you ended up in, you should want him to
>>>> have a successful term. Because the alternative is worrying.
>>>
>>> I disagree with that. I want every bad policy that he might attempt to
>>> enact not to be enacted. In other words, I want him to *fail* at every
>>> bad and wrong thing he wants to do.
>>>
>>> Do you remember when Limbaugh said the same thing about Obama in 2008?

>>> Statist collectivism (what Limbaugh mistakenly calls "liberalism") is
>>> one our problems. So is Trumpism. I hope Trumpism fails.
>>
>> Define Trumpism, Rudolf....
>
> Anti-trade,

No evidence of that.

> anti-immigration
Only anti-criminal border jumping.
Trump is even making an immigrant First Lady.

> pro-Russian
No evidence of that, in contrast to Hiliary who was involved in a deal
to give Russia access to US uranium.

> wishing to abrogate mutual security treaties

No evidence of that.

> fostering a culture of animosity toward minorities.

No evidence of that, unless you mean criminals = minorities.

[Just Wondering]

On 11/23/2016 1:10 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> [followups vandalism by stupid "kiddo" easily repaired]
>
> On 11/23/2016 11:50 AM, Matt Telles - "kiddo", and a career-long
> salaried employee - blabbered stupidly:

>
>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:14:15 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> This handy flow chart will help you determine if Trump is your president
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> https://scontent.fsnc1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15193540_10206120042520532_7970718421897511415_n.jpg?oh=25be833a81f4910d5eab61f25c4417f2&oe=58B48D70
>>>
>>>
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/hqgfrhh
>>

>> No, he's not my President.
>
> He is, of course, your president, "kiddo."
>
He is, of course, nobody's president until sworn in, which
is scheduled for Jan. 20, 2017, 12:00 p.m. EST.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

We have to assume that it's NOT genetic and that Criminals are criminals
by way of their own character and while some might claim they're victims
of past racism the truth is that it's NOT racist to view criminals as
just criminals and ignore their race even if there are more of one or
the other race who are the criminals.

So criminals=criminals and they racial make up is irrelevant.

We can't repair the damage from any past experience, we have to move
forward and if criminals can't move forward then they get left behind.

We just don't have the time or money to repair each and every snowflake....


--
That's Karma

[Siri Cruise]

In article <bqrZz.48001$BE2....@fx22.iad>,

Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I remember Obama boo-hooing that Congress blocked his economic
> proposals, then crowing that the economy is great, not recognizing
> the dichotomy of those two statements.

No, it just shows the country can still operate no matter how badly Republicans
fuck up in Congress.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <4yrZz.48860$mI2....@fx08.iad>,

Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Anti-trade,
> No evidence of that.
>
> > anti-immigration
> Only anti-criminal border jumping.
> Trump is even making an immigrant First Lady.
>
> > pro-Russian
> No evidence of that, in contrast to Hiliary who was involved in a deal
> to give Russia access to US uranium.
>
> > wishing to abrogate mutual security treaties
> No evidence of that.
>
> > fostering a culture of animosity toward minorities.
> No evidence of that, unless you mean criminals = minorities.

Time to exit your bunker o' doom and catch up with the real world.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 9:35 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <bqrZz.48001$BE2....@fx22.iad>,
> Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I remember Obama boo-hooing that Congress blocked his economic
>> proposals, then crowing that the economy is great, not recognizing
>> the dichotomy of those two statements.
>
> No, it just shows the country can still operate no matter how badly Republicans
> fuck up in Congress.
>

But it was Harry Reid who stalled ALL the legislation, you lying
meth-faced whore.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 9:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> No evidence of that, unless you mean criminals = minorities.
> Time to exit your bunker o' doom and catch up with the real world.

Start your day in south Chicago, then run for your fucking white life,
bitch!

[Rudy Canoza]

Not at the same time.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:VzpZz.24365$%J2....@fx20.iad...

> On 11/23/2016 2:06 PM, DoD wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
>> news:ldoZz.84590$dF2....@fx44.iad...
>>> On 11/23/2016 1:35 PM, DoD wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Why should he? Protesting Trump's election isn't violent, and it is
>>>>> their inherent right to protest it.
>>>>
>>>> Earth to Rudolf.... Hello, liberals are violent...
>>>
>>> non sequitur, and a lie as well. Not *all* "liberals" are violent.
>>
>> A lot of them are and
>
> A minuscule minority are, liar.

For a miniscule minority, they do a lot of damage.. Plus, whole schools
walking out?

>>> Hillary Clinton got over 62.2 million votes (and still counting.) How
>>> many people did anything violent in Portland or anywhere else due to
>>> the election result? A tiny handful, that's how many.
>>
>> If the exact same thing was happening, with the exact same amount
>> of Trumpers after his loss, you would be saying Trump protesters are
>> violent.
>
> Wrong.

So you say now...

>>> But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call for a
>>> peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course, call for
>>> a peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.
>>
>> He doesn't have to at this point. He knows what he is doing. Subtly
>> stroking [sic] thefires....
>
> *stoking*, you fucking illiterate knuckle-dragging moron.

You know when Rudy is flustered when he starts the ad-hominem.

> And no, he isn't. *Nothing* he has done can reasonably be said to be
> condoning, let alone encouraging, a violent reaction. You're just lying
> when you say that.

So why didn't he address Portland?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/23/2016 5:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 11/23/2016 1:43 PM, Rudy "kiddo" Canoza wrote:
>> On 11/23/2016 12:36 PM, DoD wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote:
>>>> On 11/23/2016 11:48 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And regardless of which box you ended up in, you should want him to
>>>>> have a successful term. Because the alternative is worrying.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with that. I want every bad policy that he might attempt to
>>>> enact not to be enacted. In other words, I want him to *fail* at every
>>>> bad and wrong thing he wants to do.
>>>>
>>>> Do you remember when Limbaugh said the same thing about Obama in 2008?
>>>> Statist collectivism (what Limbaugh mistakenly calls "liberalism") is
>>>> one our problems. So is Trumpism. I hope Trumpism fails.
>>>
>>> Define Trumpism, Rudolf....
>>
>> Anti-trade,
> No evidence of that.

There is. He wants to abrogate NAFTA and impose a 35% tariff on imports
from Mexico. He says he would "impose" tariffs up to 45% on imports
from China. When Ford said they were moving a manufacturing line -
*not* a plant - to Mexico, Trump said they should be stopped from doing
that.

Trump is anti-trade - this is settled.

>> anti-immigration
> Only anti-criminal border jumping.

No, he is hostile to *legal* immigration.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Immigration-Reform-Trump.pdf

>> pro-Russian
> No evidence of that,

Bullshit.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-214180
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/22/michael-morell/experts-say-donald-trumps-policies-dovetail-what-v/

U.S. security agencies said there is absolute proof of Russian hacking
of American computer systems, including the DNC. Trump denied it all.

>> wishing to abrogate mutual security treaties
> No evidence of that.

There is, of course.

In his book The America We Deserve, published in 2000, the first
year of Putin’s presidency, Trump (or his ghost writer) wrote,
“America has no vital interest in choosing between warring factions
whose animosities go back centuries in Eastern Europe. Their
conflicts are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe
would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of
stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly
funds that can be put to better use. We pay for the defense of
France and yet they vote against us at the United Nations and choose
the side of the North Koreans, the Libyans, and other rogue nations.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/04/when-donald-trump-was-more-anti-nato-than-vladimir-putin.html

Trump wants to pull us out of NATO.

>> fostering a culture of animosity toward minorities.
> No evidence of that,

Trump called Mexican immigrants - *ALL* of them, not just illegal aliens
- "rapists and criminals." Trump has given encouragement to white
nationalists even while carefully keeping his fingerprints off their
outrageous statements.

You're a Trump ass-sucker.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:oBpZz.24366$%J2.1...@fx20.iad...

I guess Rudolf wants another Eric Holder...Maybe even an Al Sharpton..
Perhaps
Trump could solicit Podesta?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/23/2016 10:01 PM, DoD wrote:
>
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
> news:VzpZz.24365$%J2....@fx20.iad...
>> On 11/23/2016 2:06 PM, DoD wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
>>> news:ldoZz.84590$dF2....@fx44.iad...
>>>> On 11/23/2016 1:35 PM, DoD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Why should he? Protesting Trump's election isn't violent, and it is
>>>>>> their inherent right to protest it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Earth to Rudolf.... Hello, liberals are violent...
>>>>
>>>> non sequitur, and a lie as well. Not *all* "liberals" are violent.
>>>
>>> A lot of them are and
>>
>> A minuscule minority are, liar.
>
> For a miniscule minority, they do a lot of damage.. Plus, whole schools
> walking out?
>
>>>> Hillary Clinton got over 62.2 million votes (and still counting.) How
>>>> many people did anything violent in Portland or anywhere else due to
>>>> the election result? A tiny handful, that's how many.
>>>
>>> If the exact same thing was happening, with the exact same amount
>>> of Trumpers after his loss, you would be saying Trump protesters are
>>> violent.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> So you say now...

You have no evidence to the contrary. It's nothing but your extremist
right-wing ideology.

>>>> But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call for a
>>>> peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course, call for
>>>> a peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.
>>>
>>> He doesn't have to at this point. He knows what he is doing. Subtly
>>> stroking [sic] thefires....
>>
>> *stoking*, you fucking illiterate knuckle-dragging moron.
>
> You know when Rudy is flustered when he starts the ad-hominem.

There was no "ad-hominem" [sic]. You don't even know what that means,
obviously.

>> And no, he isn't. *Nothing* he has done can reasonably be said to be
>> condoning, let alone encouraging, a violent reaction. You're just
>> lying when you say that.
>
> So why didn't he address Portland?

I did address it. It was a minuscule minority - not in dispute.

Here are the facts:

1. Obama has repeatedly called for a peaceful transfer of power.
2. Obama has not in *ANY* way condoned violent protests against Trump.

Your belief is refuted - categorically.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, I have always - and unequivocally - signaled my disgust at both of
those.

You're going to have to try another smear, which I will repudiate with
ease, as with all the others.

I am not a "liberal." I am not a conservative, either, but that fact -
not conservative - in no way shows that I am a "liberal."

You lose - as always.

[Just Wondering]

Within the same general time frame.

[Steve]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:51:51 -0800 (PST), Matt <matt....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:47:38 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 11/23/2016 02:50 PM, Matt wrote:

>> > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:14:15 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >> > This handy flow chart will help you determine if Trump is your president
>> >> > or not.
>> >> >
>> >> > https://scontent.fsnc1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15193540_10206120042520532_7970718421897511415_n.jpg?oh=25be833a81f4910d5eab61f25c4417f2&oe=58B48D70
>> >> >
>> >> > or http://tinyurl.com/hqgfrhh
>>

>> > No, he's not my President.
>>
>>

>> All the illegal aliens are spewing the same hate.... and they are
>> correct. NOT being legal residents, their President is down in Mexico
>> or South America.....
>
>We understand that you, being in Trumpistan, care about such things. But those of us in the real world think that Donald Trump better grow up very fast, or he'll be facing impeachment in two years from the newly elected Democratic Congress.

If wishes were horses......

>Deal with it.
>
>Two years, and if you don't get it EXACTLY right, you are gone.
>
>Welcome to America, comrade.
>
>Matt

I hope someone is keeping an eye on the White House silverware. Remember what happened the last time Democrats got evicted from there.

[Steve]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 04:48:31 -0800 (PST), Matt <matt....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 6:09:43 AM UTC-5, Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:51:51 -0800 (PST), Matt <matt....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:47:38 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> >> On 11/23/2016 02:50 PM, Matt wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:14:15 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >> >> > This handy flow chart will help you determine if Trump is your president
>> >> >> > or not.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://scontent.fsnc1-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15193540_10206120042520532_7970718421897511415_n.jpg?oh=25be833a81f4910d5eab61f25c4417f2&oe=58B48D70
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > or http://tinyurl.com/hqgfrhh
>> >>
>> >> > No, he's not my President.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All the illegal aliens are spewing the same hate.... and they are
>> >> correct. NOT being legal residents, their President is down in Mexico
>> >> or South America.....
>> >
>> >We understand that you, being in Trumpistan, care about such things. But those of us in the real world think that Donald Trump better grow up very fast, or he'll be facing impeachment in two years from the newly elected Democratic Congress.
>>
>> If wishes were horses......
>>
>

>No, not really. Think about it. The first off-year election is always bad for the party in power.
>
>With Congress as close as it is, there is a better than average chance the House will go to the Democrats. The Senate might as well.
>
>Then what?
>
>Matt

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/senate-2018-democrats-228055

'Democrats brace against potential 2018 Senate 'disaster'

"The 2018 landscape will feature 5 Democrats defending seats in
ruby-red states."

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/23/2016 11:02 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Trump is anti-trade - this is settled.

You are little man Jonathan Ball a failed appraiser and a Suckramento
shut-in.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/24/2016 1:12 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> So why didn't he address Portland?
>
> I did address it. It was a minuscule minority - not in dispute.

It was and IS emblematic of the riots across the nation, Jonathan Ball.

[Allah's Cock Bar]

On 11/24/2016 1:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> I am not a "liberal." I am not a conservative, either, but

You are one Jonathan Ball, failed property appraiser of Suckramento
Caliphonya.

You are a little man with a big keyboard and a broken Jetta TDI in his
drivewway.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, that's bullshit. The economy wasn't better until years into his
term, and he never said otherwise. You're lying.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:%hxZz.59923$iI2....@fx07.iad...

Well, duh.... But an educated guess tells me you would.

>>>>> But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call for a
>>>>> peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course, call for
>>>>> a peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't have to at this point. He knows what he is doing. Subtly
>>>> stroking [sic] thefires....
>>>
>>> *stoking*, you fucking illiterate knuckle-dragging moron.
>>
>> You know when Rudy is flustered when he starts the ad-hominem.
>
> There was no "ad-hominem" [sic]. You don't even know what that means,
> obviously.

Do you?

>>> And no, he isn't. *Nothing* he has done can reasonably be said to be
>>> condoning, let alone encouraging, a violent reaction. You're just
>>> lying when you say that.
>>
>> So why didn't he address Portland?
>
> I did address it. It was a minuscule minority - not in dispute.

Why didn't "he" address Portland

> Here are the facts:
>
> 1. Obama has repeatedly called for a peaceful transfer of power.

When he thought Clinton was going to win.... Provide one clip of him asking
for that since Trump became president-elect.

> 2. Obama has not in *ANY* way condoned violent protests against Trump.

As mentioned before, he doesn't have to.

> Your belief is refuted - categorically.

Not by you.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:amxZz.70250$HF2....@fx41.iad...

Never said you were.. Never said you were conservative... Never said you
were libertarian... Always have said you were a coin tosser.

> You lose - as always.

Not really. You never explained why Sessions is a disaster....

[First-Post]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 21:09:43 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>

"President Barack Obama has little sympathy for President-elect Donald
Trump when it comes to the protests against him, and he offered up
some advice for his successor: Get used to it.

“I’ve been the subject of protests during the course of my eight
years,” Obama said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor
Angela Merkel on Thursday. “And I suspect that there’s not a president
in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests. So, I would
not advise people who feel strongly or who are concerned about some of
the issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign, I
wouldn’t advise them to be silent.”"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-to-trump-protesters-231558

Not once has Obama told the protesters to stop the violence.
He has only told them to effectively "march on".

His "smooth" transition of power only refers to the official dealings
between his administration and the next one.

[DoD]

"First-Post" <ProgressivesW...@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:3mbf3c1eh8589b49g...@4ax.com...

Exactly

[Rudy Canoza]

It's an ignorant guess, as expected, and it's wrong.

>>>>>> But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call
>>>>>> for a
>>>>>> peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course, call for
>>>>>> a peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.
>>>>>
>>>>> He doesn't have to at this point. He knows what he is doing. Subtly
>>>>> stroking [sic] thefires....
>>>>
>>>> *stoking*, you fucking illiterate knuckle-dragging moron.
>>>
>>> You know when Rudy is flustered when he starts the ad-hominem.
>>
>> There was no "ad-hominem" [sic]. You don't even know what that means,
>> obviously.
>
> Do you?

Of course. I'm educated.

Pointing out - and mocking - your illiteracy is not /ad hominem/ in any way.

>>>> And no, he isn't. *Nothing* he has done can reasonably be said to be
>>>> condoning, let alone encouraging, a violent reaction. You're just
>>>> lying when you say that.
>>>
>>> So why didn't he address Portland?
>>
>> I did address it. It was a minuscule minority - not in dispute.
>
> Why didn't "he" address Portland

He did, when he called for a peaceful transfer of power.

>> Here are the facts:
>>
>> 1. Obama has repeatedly called for a peaceful transfer of power.
>
> When he thought Clinton was going to win

No, liar, *after* the election. That's when he called for it.

>
>> 2. Obama has not in *ANY* way condoned violent protests against Trump.
>
> As mentioned before, he doesn't have to.

You're saying that in some way he did. You're lying.

>> Your belief is refuted - categorically.
>
> Not by you.

Yes, especially by me.

[Rudy Canoza]

You are trying to smear me as one, only because I don't go along with
your ignorant knuckle-dragging conservatism.

>> You lose - as always.
>
> Not really.

Yeah, you did.

[Rudy Canoza]

He has done.

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:IDOZz.123829$EI2....@fx06.iad...

Well, you might have flipped a coin on it....

>>>>>>> But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call
>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course, call
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He doesn't have to at this point. He knows what he is doing. Subtly
>>>>>> stroking [sic] thefires....
>>>>>
>>>>> *stoking*, you fucking illiterate knuckle-dragging moron.
>>>>
>>>> You know when Rudy is flustered when he starts the ad-hominem.
>>>
>>> There was no "ad-hominem" [sic]. You don't even know what that means,
>>> obviously.
>>
>> Do you?
>
> Of course. I'm educated.

What does that mean? You took a class in college?

> Pointing out - and mocking - your illiteracy is not /ad hominem/ in any
> way.

What illiteracy? And still, if that was what you were trying to do, does
that have to
include name calling and cursing? I thought you just said you were
educated?

>>>>> And no, he isn't. *Nothing* he has done can reasonably be said to be
>>>>> condoning, let alone encouraging, a violent reaction. You're just
>>>>> lying when you say that.
>>>>
>>>> So why didn't he address Portland?
>>>
>>> I did address it. It was a minuscule minority - not in dispute.
>>
>> Why didn't "he" address Portland
>
> He did, when he called for a peaceful transfer of power.

Post one instance....

>>> Here are the facts:
>>>
>>> 1. Obama has repeatedly called for a peaceful transfer of power.
>>
>> When he thought Clinton was going to win
>
> No, liar, *after* the election. That's when he called for it.

Waiting....

>>
>>> 2. Obama has not in *ANY* way condoned violent protests against Trump.
>>
>> As mentioned before, he doesn't have to.
>
> You're saying that in some way he did. You're lying.

No... He doesn't have to....

>>> Your belief is refuted - categorically.
>>
>> Not by you.
>
> Yes, especially by me.

And you would be wrong as usual...

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:OEOZz.123830$EI2....@fx06.iad...

Again, never said you were... Always said you are a coin tosser..

>>> You lose - as always.
>>
>> Not really.
>
> Yeah, you did.

Says the coin tosser...

[Rudy Canoza]

No. It's not a gamble. I have knowledge.

>>>>>>>> But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call
>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>> peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course,
>>>>>>>> call for
>>>>>>>> a peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He doesn't have to at this point. He knows what he is doing. Subtly
>>>>>>> stroking [sic] thefires....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *stoking*, you fucking illiterate knuckle-dragging moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know when Rudy is flustered when he starts the ad-hominem.
>>>>
>>>> There was no "ad-hominem" [sic]. You don't even know what that means,
>>>> obviously.
>>>
>>> Do you?
>>
>> Of course. I'm educated.
>
> What does that mean?

Looks like English isn't your native tongue, then.

>> Pointing out - and mocking - your illiteracy is not /ad hominem/ in
>> any way.
>
> What illiteracy?

Writing "stroking" when the correct word is *stoking*. That wasn't a typo.

>
>>>>>> And no, he isn't. *Nothing* he has done can reasonably be said to be
>>>>>> condoning, let alone encouraging, a violent reaction. You're just
>>>>>> lying when you say that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why didn't he address Portland?
>>>>
>>>> I did address it. It was a minuscule minority - not in dispute.
>>>
>>> Why didn't "he" address Portland
>>
>> He did, when he called for a peaceful transfer of power.
>
> Post one instance....

Already have done.

>>>> Here are the facts:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Obama has repeatedly called for a peaceful transfer of power.
>>>
>>> When he thought Clinton was going to win
>>
>> No, liar, *after* the election. That's when he called for it.
>
> Waiting....

No, I've already done it, and you saw them.

>>>
>>>> 2. Obama has not in *ANY* way condoned violent protests against Trump.
>>>
>>> As mentioned before, he doesn't have to.
>>
>> You're saying that in some way he did. You're lying.
>
> No... He doesn't have to....

He didn't condone any violence, but by dirty innuendo you're suggesting
he did. He didn't. He condemned violence.

>>>> Your belief is refuted - categorically.
>>>
>>> Not by you.
>>
>> Yes, especially by me.
>
> And you would be wrong as usual...

No, I'm right - as always.

[Rudy Canoza]

You tried to suggest I was, which I repudiated easily.

>>>> You lose - as always.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>
>> Yeah, you did.
>
> Says the

Says the guy who is right, and who lords it over you.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 11/24/2016 10:11 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Patricia,Ted and Rudy are Jonathon Balls suck Puppets. Jonathon lives in
his sisters basement as an electronically monitored parolee. Seems his
felonious activities keep him from getting any kind of a work license
and Who would hire a person on the predators list.


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[PaxPerPoten]

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:LQOZz.63067$TD2....@fx36.iad...

You have a funny way of demonstrating that.

>>>>>>>>> But the issue was, you lied when you said that Obama didn't call
>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>> peaceful transfer of power. President Obama did, of course,
>>>>>>>>> call for
>>>>>>>>> a peaceful transfer of power. You shouldn't lie - it's immoral.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to at this point. He knows what he is doing. Subtly
>>>>>>>> stroking [sic] thefires....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *stoking*, you fucking illiterate knuckle-dragging moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know when Rudy is flustered when he starts the ad-hominem.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no "ad-hominem" [sic]. You don't even know what that means,
>>>>> obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Do you?
>>>
>>> Of course. I'm educated.
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
> Looks like English isn't your native tongue, then.

What if it isn't? What if it is my third language?

>>> Pointing out - and mocking - your illiteracy is not /ad hominem/ in
>>> any way.
>>
>> What illiteracy?
>
> Writing "stroking" when the correct word is *stoking*. That wasn't a
> typo.

You wrote he instead of the..... Can we say that wasn't a typo? Also look at
your
keyboard to see what letters are next to each other...

>>>>>>> And no, he isn't. *Nothing* he has done can reasonably be said to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> condoning, let alone encouraging, a violent reaction. You're just
>>>>>>> lying when you say that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why didn't he address Portland?
>>>>>
>>>>> I did address it. It was a minuscule minority - not in dispute.
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't "he" address Portland
>>>
>>> He did, when he called for a peaceful transfer of power.
>>
>> Post one instance....
>
> Already have done.

Haven't seen it yet....

>>>>> Here are the facts:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Obama has repeatedly called for a peaceful transfer of power.
>>>>
>>>> When he thought Clinton was going to win
>>>
>>> No, liar, *after* the election. That's when he called for it.
>>
>> Waiting....
>
> No, I've already done it, and you saw them.

Gdje? Oni nisu ovdje....

>>>>> 2. Obama has not in *ANY* way condoned violent protests against
>>>>> Trump.
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned before, he doesn't have to.
>>>
>>> You're saying that in some way he did. You're lying.
>>
>> No... He doesn't have to....
>
> He didn't condone any violence, but by dirty innuendo you're suggesting he
> did. He didn't. He condemned violence.

Still waiting to see that.

>>>>> Your belief is refuted - categorically.
>>>>
>>>> Not by you.
>>>
>>> Yes, especially by me.
>>
>> And you would be wrong as usual...
>
> No, I'm right - as always.

LOL....

[DoD]

"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message

news:KROZz.63068$TD2....@fx36.iad...

Nope... Only said you were a coin tosser...

>>>>> You lose - as always.
>>>>
>>>> Not really.
>>>
>>> Yeah, you did.
>>
>> Says the
>
> Says the guy who is right, and who lords it over you.

LOL...

[Rudy Canoza]

<chuckle>

>>>> Pointing out - and mocking - your illiteracy is not /ad hominem/ in
>>>> any way.
>>>
>>> What illiteracy?
>>
>> Writing "stroking" when the correct word is *stoking*. That wasn't a
>> typo.
>
> You wrote he instead of the

That was, of course, a typo. Yours wasn't - you just wrote the wrong
word, thinking it was the right word. You're ignorant.

>>>>>>>> And no, he isn't. *Nothing* he has done can reasonably be said
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> condoning, let alone encouraging, a violent reaction. You're just
>>>>>>>> lying when you say that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why didn't he address Portland?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did address it. It was a minuscule minority - not in dispute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why didn't "he" address Portland
>>>>
>>>> He did, when he called for a peaceful transfer of power.
>>>
>>> Post one instance....
>>
>> Already have done.
>
> Haven't seen it yet....

Yes, you have.

>>>>>> Here are the facts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Obama has repeatedly called for a peaceful transfer of power.
>>>>>
>>>>> When he thought Clinton was going to win
>>>>
>>>> No, liar, *after* the election. That's when he called for it.
>>>
>>> Waiting....
>>
>> No, I've already done it, and you saw them.
>
> Gdje? Oni nisu ovdje....

You don't really know Croation; you just used Google Translate.

>>>>>> 2. Obama has not in *ANY* way condoned violent protests against
>>>>>> Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> As mentioned before, he doesn't have to.
>>>>
>>>> You're saying that in some way he did. You're lying.
>>>
>>> No... He doesn't have to....
>>
>> He didn't condone any violence, but by dirty innuendo you're
>> suggesting he did. He didn't. He condemned violence.
>
> Still waiting to see that.

No, you saw it. You're lying about it due to your crippling Obama
Derangement Syndrome.

>>>>>> Your belief is refuted - categorically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not by you.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, especially by me.
>>>
>>> And you would be wrong as usual...
>>
>> No, I'm right - as always.
>
> LOL....

<chortle>

[Rudy Canoza]

Yep.

>>>>>> You lose - as always.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, you did.
>>>
>>> Says the
>>
>> Says the guy who is right, and who lords it over you.
>
> LOL...

<chortle>

[PaxPerPoten]

On 11/25/2016 1:17 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Elizabeth, Catherine, Ted and Rudy are all Suck Puppets from the very
sick perverted mind of Johnathon Ball of Sacramento. The scrawny runt
pervert thinks they are real.

[PaxPerPoten]