FBI: Virginia Gunman Visited Bernie Sanders' Office Prior to Shooting

[raykeller]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3562963/posts
SeanFBI: Virginia Gunman Visited Bernie Sanders' Office Prior to Shooting
Posted on 6/21/2017, 2:57:51 PM by Mechanicos

The FBI released new information Wednesday on the lone gunman who critically
injured a congressman when he opened fire at a GOP baseball game last week,
saying the suspect had visited the office of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
and had exchanged emails with two senators from Illinois prior to the
shooting, reports ... The FBI also said the shooter had been in contact with
the offices of democratic senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Met with Sanders and communicated with 2 Democrat Senators before opening
fire on the GOP Baseball team.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you imagine if the parties were reversed in this story?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democrat collusion...arrest and prosecute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FBI should raid all their offices and confiscate all computers, phone
logs, and recordings of each phone call. Time to play hardball with these
Rat terrorist supporters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you imagine if the parties were reversed in this story?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. To us we have enough common sense to know that his visiting these
senators has nothing to do with his murderous spree. But if the parties were
reversed, it would mean the republican senators colluded with him to kill
off the Dem baseball team. That is a fact. CNN would not stop finding this
"evidence."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ain't that a coincidence. But we know Bernie doesn't support violence....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can you imagine if the parties were reversed in this story?"

Children would still be reading about it in schoolbooks 50 years from now,
and they would institute a national day of mourning to commemorate it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Can you imagine if the parties were reversed in this story?"

It would be 24/7 scrollacross. "Gunman contacted GOP senators, may have
coordinated attack, sources say."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like a Special Counsel is needed to investigate the possibility of
collusion!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems that there was 2 way communications between shooter Hodgkinson and the
Rat party, Rat politicians and their staff .
What was said and who said it has a need of being investigated.

Simple as that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this was a Trump supporter that contacted Trump then went out with a list
of dems to shoot.. and shot some..
Trump would not just be impeached he be publicly executed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to launch a special investigation!!

What did they know and when did they know it. These are serious allegations
that need to be investigated. We can leave no stone un-turned. Some body has
to know something! There is a conspiracy here I tell you!

/time to put the shoe on the other foot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Met with Sanders and communicated with 2 Democrat Senators before opening
fire on the GOP Baseball team."

We were wondering how he knew where to be to start firing at Republicans.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Wayne]

On 6/22/2017 1:24 AM, raykeller wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3562963/posts
> SeanFBI: Virginia Gunman Visited Bernie Sanders' Office Prior to Shooting
> Posted on 6/21/2017, 2:57:51 PM by Mechanicos
>
> The FBI released new information Wednesday on the lone gunman who critically
> injured a congressman when he opened fire at a GOP baseball game last week,
> saying the suspect had visited the office of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
> and had exchanged emails with two senators from Illinois prior to the
> shooting, reports ... The FBI also said the shooter had been in contact with
> the offices of democratic senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.
>
>

Bernie has been using incendiary rhetoric. It's no surprise that his
rants inspire nutjobs.

[Fred Wingo]

On 6/22/2017 10:28 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:24:01, "raykeller@looser_losers.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3562963/posts
>> SeanFBI: Virginia Gunman Visited Bernie Sanders' Office Prior to Shooting
>>

>> The FBI released new information Wednesday on the lone gunman who critically
>> injured a congressman when he opened fire at a GOP baseball game last week,
>> saying the suspect had visited the office of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
>> and had exchanged emails with two senators from Illinois prior to the
>> shooting, reports ... The FBI also said the shooter had been in contact with
>> the offices of democratic senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Met with Sanders and communicated with 2 Democrat Senators before opening
>> fire on the GOP Baseball team.
>

> You seem to have morphed "visited office" into "met with Sanders".

The shitbag is doing worse than that. He is all but claiming that
Sanders played a role in planning and carrying out the shooting.

> Personally, I can't imagine me - as a penniless nobody - diddly
> bopping into the Senate office complex and getting a sit down with
> Sanders.
>
> He was clearly a Bernie lover. He clearly targeted Rs. You are trying
> to take it a step too far and put high Ds in some sort of active
> conspiracy. If that's what you mean, present the data.
>
>

[Frank]

On 6/22/2017 2:53 PM, Fred Wingo wrote:
> On 6/22/2017 10:28 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:24:01, "raykeller@looser_losers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3562963/posts
>>> SeanFBI: Virginia Gunman Visited Bernie Sanders' Office Prior to
>>> Shooting
>>>
>>> The FBI released new information Wednesday on the lone gunman who
>>> critically
>>> injured a congressman when he opened fire at a GOP baseball game last
>>> week,
>>> saying the suspect had visited the office of Vermont Senator Bernie
>>> Sanders
>>> and had exchanged emails with two senators from Illinois prior to the
>>> shooting, reports ... The FBI also said the shooter had been in
>>> contact with
>>> the offices of democratic senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Met with Sanders and communicated with 2 Democrat Senators before
>>> opening
>>> fire on the GOP Baseball team.
>>
>> You seem to have morphed "visited office" into "met with Sanders".
>
> The shitbag is doing worse than that. He is all but claiming that
> Sanders played a role in planning and carrying out the shooting.
>

Sanders would have never gotten traction as a democrat if not for those
looking to only alternative to Crooked Hillary.

There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the aid of
the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the nuts in their
party to violence.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:02:35 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:00:13 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>>On 6/22/2017 2:53 PM, Fred Wingo wrote:
>
>>>He is all but claiming that
>>> Sanders played a role in planning and carrying out the shooting.
>>
>>Sanders would have never gotten traction as a democrat if not for those
>>looking to only alternative to Crooked Hillary.
>

>Agreed. And Sanders might very well have one the nomination in an
>honestly run set of primaries.

>
>>There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the aid of
>>the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the nuts in their
>>party to violence.
>

>You are on both sides of your coin.
>
>Sanders has reason to hate the party machinery.
>Sanders is conspiring to do the parties dirty business.
>
>Which way do you think it is?

Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.

The Trumpistas -- mixed-rightist-populists -- would incinerate him
with an endless stream of socialist memes.

And the Democrats know it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Fred Wingo]

That doesn't even mean anything. He got traction precisely because a
large part of the party wanted a more "progressive" candidate.

> There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the aid of
> the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the nuts in their
> party to violence.

You have not a shred of evidence of any party leaders inciting anyone to
violence. You're a crank.

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpnokct4dpopvvhvv...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:02:35 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:00:13 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>>>On 6/22/2017 2:53 PM, Fred Wingo wrote:
>>
>>>>He is all but claiming that
>>>> Sanders played a role in planning and carrying out the shooting.
>>>
>>>Sanders would have never gotten traction as a democrat if not for those
>>>looking to only alternative to Crooked Hillary.
>>
>>Agreed. And Sanders might very well have one the nomination in an
>>honestly run set of primaries.
>>
>>>There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the aid of
>>>the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the nuts in their
>>>party to violence.
>>
>>You are on both sides of your coin.
>>
>>Sanders has reason to hate the party machinery.
>>Sanders is conspiring to do the parties dirty business.
>>
>>Which way do you think it is?
>
> Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
> like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.

Sure, and I seem to recall everyone said the same thing about Trump. .

I will just note that more Democrats were willing to vote for Sanders than
they were Hillary.

> The Trumpistas -- mixed-rightist-populists -- would incinerate him
> with an endless stream of socialist memes.

Na, that's something Democrats do to the President as witnessed by their
actions over the last 8 months.

> And the Democrats know it.

Showing just how out of touch with the people the DNC is.

[Scout]

"Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message
news:gjZ2B.110422$WX.2...@fx07.iad...

You mean besides their public appeals for violence against Trump and other
conservatives?

[de chucka]

snip

> The FBI should raid all their offices and confiscate all computers, phone
> logs, and recordings of each phone call. Time to play hardball with these
> Rat terrorist supporters.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Can you imagine if the parties were reversed in this story?

Yes it would be called fake news and the FBI would be abused

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:01:04 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@removethis.this2.centurylink.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:kpnokct4dpopvvhvv...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:02:35 -0700, Winston_Smith
>> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:00:13 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>>>>On 6/22/2017 2:53 PM, Fred Wingo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>He is all but claiming that
>>>>> Sanders played a role in planning and carrying out the shooting.
>>>>
>>>>Sanders would have never gotten traction as a democrat if not for those
>>>>looking to only alternative to Crooked Hillary.
>>>
>>>Agreed. And Sanders might very well have one the nomination in an
>>>honestly run set of primaries.
>>>
>>>>There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the aid of
>>>>the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the nuts in their
>>>>party to violence.
>>>
>>>You are on both sides of your coin.
>>>
>>>Sanders has reason to hate the party machinery.
>>>Sanders is conspiring to do the parties dirty business.
>>>
>>>Which way do you think it is?
>>
>> Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
>> like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.
>
>
>Sure, and I seem to recall everyone said the same thing about Trump. .

I don't recall anyone calling him a socialist.

>
>I will just note that more Democrats were willing to vote for Sanders than
>they were Hillary.

No, that didn't happen.

>
>
>> The Trumpistas -- mixed-rightist-populists -- would incinerate him
>> with an endless stream of socialist memes.
>
>Na, that's something Democrats do to the President as witnessed by their
>actions over the last 8 months.

I don't recall Democrats calling Trump a socialist, either. When did
that happen?

>
>> And the Democrats know it.
>
>Showing just how out of touch with the people the DNC is.

Trump is neither left nor right. He'll jump on whatever populist theme
seems to be working. In terms of principles, he's a complete weasel.
His voters only cared that he addessed their (populist) angers. He
covered both sides of both ideologies with great skill.

Trump never forgets the basic, underlying idea of populism: "I'm not
getting enough, and it's because someone else is getting too much."

Sanders clearly is a leftist-populist. He would turn off both the
right and the center. There's no way that most Americans would vote
for someone who wants to upend the country in such an extreme leftist
direction, and the Republicans would remind them of it every day.

"You think you hate Obamacare? Wait 'till you see what Bernie wants to
shove down your throat!"

--
Ed Huntress

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:24:01 -0700, "raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:

>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3562963/posts
>SeanFBI: Virginia Gunman Visited Bernie Sanders' Office Prior to Shooting
>Posted on 6/21/2017, 2:57:51 PM by Mechanicos
>
>The FBI released new information Wednesday on the lone gunman who critically
>injured a congressman when he opened fire at a GOP baseball game last week,
>saying the suspect had visited the office of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
>and had exchanged emails with two senators from Illinois prior to the
>shooting, reports ... The FBI also said the shooter had been in contact with
>the offices of democratic senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.

Collusion. Arrest Bernie, Dick and Tammy !!!

[Fred Wingo]

There haven't been any of those.

[Scout]

"Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message

news:an%2B.14777$on3....@fx26.iad...

Apparently you've not been listening to the news then.

[Scout]

"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:6u7pkc1n40752mlta...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:25:43 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:02:35 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:00:13 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>>>>On 6/22/2017 2:53 PM, Fred Wingo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>He is all but claiming that
>>>>> Sanders played a role in planning and carrying out the shooting.
>>>>
>>>>Sanders would have never gotten traction as a democrat if not for those
>>>>looking to only alternative to Crooked Hillary.
>>>
>>>Agreed. And Sanders might very well have one the nomination in an
>>>honestly run set of primaries.
>>>
>>>>There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the aid of
>>>>the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the nuts in their
>>>>party to violence.
>>>
>>>You are on both sides of your coin.
>>>
>>>Sanders has reason to hate the party machinery.
>>>Sanders is conspiring to do the parties dirty business.
>>>
>>>Which way do you think it is?
>>
>>Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
>>like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.
>

> I only said he might have won the primary. I make no assessment of his
> chances in the general. Certainly a Trump-Sanders race would be
> between the disaffected of both parties that are more than fed up with
> the business as usual machines that infests both parties.

And by ignoring them.....do you really think the Democrats might have turned
them off to voting for Hillary, or worse throwing their vote to Trump
instead, since he still isn't "business as usual" despite being on the
opposite side?

I know a number of Sanders supporters who sat out the election and a few who
threw their vote to Trump in protest of what they did to Sanders.

Could that have made the difference? I think so in a few key states taken by
Trump by slim victories.

>
>>The Trumpistas -- mixed-rightist-populists -- would incinerate him
>>with an endless stream of socialist memes.
>>
>> And the Democrats know it.
>

> Are you saying thus they held their noses and went with Hillary?
> Or are you saying the party machine sabotaged Sanders as an act of
> survival?
>
> I suspect when anyone talks about Democrats they must first say if
> they mean machine Ds or the average Joe on the street that thinks to
> the left. They are as far apart as conservatives and Republicans.
>
> Too bad for the Ds they only had Bernie or Hillary. She is flat out
> ineffective on the campaign trail even if she didn't have all the
> corruption baggage.
>

[Just Wondering]

On 6/22/2017 7:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 Scout wrote:
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
>>> like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.
>>
>> Sure, and I seem to recall everyone said the same thing about Trump. .
>
> I don't recall anyone calling him a socialist.
>

All that means is that your "recaller" is either defective is not being
supplied with the necessary facts.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/27/434872755/exactly-what-kind-of-socialist-is-bernie-sanders

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-socialist_n_7182752.html

https://newrepublic.com/article/121680/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-not-just-socialist

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/19/bernie_sanders_defines_democratic_socialism_it_s_not_all_that_socialist.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/aug/26/bernie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/

[Shane Bauer]

On 22 Jun 2017, Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> posted some
news:6u7pkc1n40752mlta...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:25:43 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:02:35 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:00:13 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net>
>>>>wrote: On 6/22/2017 2:53 PM, Fred Wingo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>He is all but claiming that
>>>>> Sanders played a role in planning and carrying out the shooting.
>>>>
>>>>Sanders would have never gotten traction as a democrat if not for
>>>>those looking to only alternative to Crooked Hillary.
>>>
>>>Agreed. And Sanders might very well have one the nomination in an
>>>honestly run set of primaries.
>>>
>>>>There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the aid
>>>>of the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the nuts in
>>>>their party to violence.
>>>
>>>You are on both sides of your coin.
>>>
>>>Sanders has reason to hate the party machinery.
>>>Sanders is conspiring to do the parties dirty business.
>>>
>>>Which way do you think it is?
>>
>>Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
>>like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.
>

> I only said he might have won the primary. I make no assessment of his
> chances in the general. Certainly a Trump-Sanders race would be
> between the disaffected of both parties that are more than fed up with
> the business as usual machines that infests both parties.
>

>>The Trumpistas -- mixed-rightist-populists -- would incinerate him
>>with an endless stream of socialist memes.
>>
>> And the Democrats know it.
>

> Are you saying thus they held their noses and went with Hillary?
> Or are you saying the party machine sabotaged Sanders as an act of
> survival?
>
> I suspect when anyone talks about Democrats they must first say if
> they mean machine Ds or the average Joe on the street that thinks to
> the left. They are as far apart as conservatives and Republicans.
>
> Too bad for the Ds they only had Bernie or Hillary. She is flat out
> ineffective on the campaign trail even if she didn't have all the
> corruption baggage.

Being a lying money whore isn't baggage?

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:12:54 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:35:44 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:01:04 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>"Ed Huntress" wrote:
>
>>>> Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
>>>> like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.
>>>
>>>Sure, and I seem to recall everyone said the same thing about Trump. .
>>
>>I don't recall anyone calling him a socialist.
>

>They called him a Nazi and a fascist. A sex pervert of several
>varieties, and when they were felling charitable, just a corrupt
>businessman.

Well, that doesn't seem to have bothered his supporters. They seem to
have been comfortable with that.

But if they had called him a socialist, and if it was true, that would
have been the end for him.

>
>Each side has their classic names to call the opposition.

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that a
socialist has no chance to win in a general election. And that
wouldn't be calling him "names." It would be calling him what he is,
and which he acknowledges.

>
>They still are; witness the recent furor over rewriting Shakespeare to
>cast Trump as the tyrant that needs to be slaughtered in the streets
>to save the world.

They didn't re-write it.

>
>If funny lady doesn't ISIS (a verb) him first.

I'm not big on making predictions, but the long-term prospect looks
like this: It took two years to catch Nixon. A year from now,
Mueller's investigation will have morphed, just like the
investigations of Nixon and both Clintons. In Trump's case, it
probably will turn up another case of money-laundering, like the one
for which he was fined $477,000 in 1998. This time, he won't get away
with not admitting wrongdoing.

Kushner may go with him. If you follow New York real estate, you'll
eventually come across the fact that many of those
multi-million-dollar apartments (you buy such apartments in NYC, you
don't rent them) are owned by dummy corporations but have no one
living in them. Maybe you'll wonder what that's about. Maybe you'll
wonder how Kushner stays out of bankrupcy when he overpaid
$600,000,000 for 666 Fifth Ave. and has negative cash flow. Then
you'll note how chummy he is with Russian banks that are under US
sanction.

Follow the money.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 02:50:50 -0600, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 6/22/2017 7:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 Scout wrote:
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
>>>> like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.
>>>
>>> Sure, and I seem to recall everyone said the same thing about Trump. .
>>
>> I don't recall anyone calling him a socialist.
>>
>All that means is that your "recaller" is either defective is not being
>supplied with the necessary facts.

Hey, snap out of it. I said I don't remember anyone calling TRUMP a
socialist. Bernie calls HIMSELF a socialist.

You wasted a lot of effort below by not reading carefully.

>
>http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/27/434872755/exactly-what-kind-of-socialist-is-bernie-sanders
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-socialist_n_7182752.html
>
>https://newrepublic.com/article/121680/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-not-just-socialist
>
>http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/19/bernie_sanders_defines_democratic_socialism_it_s_not_all_that_socialist.html
>
>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/aug/26/bernie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:05:55 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:25:43 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:02:35 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:00:13 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>>>>On 6/22/2017 2:53 PM, Fred Wingo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>He is all but claiming that
>>>>> Sanders played a role in planning and carrying out the shooting.
>>>>
>>>>Sanders would have never gotten traction as a democrat if not for those
>>>>looking to only alternative to Crooked Hillary.
>>>
>>>Agreed. And Sanders might very well have one the nomination in an
>>>honestly run set of primaries.
>>>
>>>>There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the aid of
>>>>the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the nuts in their
>>>>party to violence.
>>>
>>>You are on both sides of your coin.
>>>
>>>Sanders has reason to hate the party machinery.
>>>Sanders is conspiring to do the parties dirty business.
>>>
>>>Which way do you think it is?
>>
>>Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
>>like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.
>

>I only said he might have won the primary. I make no assessment of his
>chances in the general. Certainly a Trump-Sanders race would be
>between the disaffected of both parties that are more than fed up with
>the business as usual machines that infests both parties.
>

>>The Trumpistas -- mixed-rightist-populists -- would incinerate him
>>with an endless stream of socialist memes.
>>
>> And the Democrats know it.
>

>Are you saying thus they held their noses and went with Hillary?

Well, that was mixed. She had varying amounts of actual support within
the party.

>Or are you saying the party machine sabotaged Sanders as an act of
>survival?

Sure. They did that, and I would have done the same. The Republicans
should have done the same with Trump. Sanders was an interloper in the
Democrats, and Trump was an interloper in the Republicans.

Both of them came in from somewhere else (Trump was a Democrat who
supported Schumer in NY) and had the potential to do real damage to
the party.

[Ed Huntress]

I listen to lots of news, from both angles. Tell us which Democratic
"party leaders" made "public appeals" for "violence" against "Trump
and other conservatives."

There aren't any. You're just getting blinded by your own emotion.

--
Ed Huntress

[Frank]

Get serious. Listen to you tubes of your leaders like Pelosi who tell
us that Trump is the worse thing to ever happen to the American people.
Not direct call for violence but as close as you can get.

[Ed Huntress]

I am serious.

> Listen to you tubes of your leaders like Pelosi who tell
>us that Trump is the worse thing to ever happen to the American people.

She's probably right about that. Living in the NYC metro area, I've
been following him for 40 years. Once a lying dirtbag, always a lying
dirtbag.

>Not direct call for violence but as close as you can get.

As you said, no call for violence. You guys don't seem to be listening
to yourselves these days.

--
Ed Huntress

[Fred Wingo]

I have been. There have been no instances of Democratic party leaders
calling for violence against Trump or other conservatives.

[Fred Wingo]

On 6/23/2017 1:50 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 6/22/2017 7:35 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 Scout wrote:
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
>>>> like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.
>>>
>>> Sure, and I seem to recall everyone said the same thing about Trump. .
>>
>> I don't recall anyone calling him a socialist.
>>
> All that means is that your "recaller" is either defective is not being
> supplied with the necessary facts.
>
> http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/27/434872755/exactly-what-kind-of-socialist-is-bernie-sanders

That one is good enough, as the others all say the same thing. Sanders
is not a socialist:

Webster's dictionary defines socialism as a form of society in which
government owns or controls major industries. Marxist theory says
socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Neither one of these definitions is what Sanders is talking about.


Most people, you included, you the word inaccurately and sloppily, not
to mention simply bandying it about as a catch-all swearword for anyone
to your left. Sanders is not a socialist. He is a left-wing
social-welfarist. He wants the U.S. to have a Scandinavian-style social
welfare state, but the Scandinavian countries are all *deeply*
capitalistic. Their economies are predicated on private enterprise
operating in free, loosely regulated markets.

Sanders is not a socialist.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:00:44 -0700, Fred Wingo <wieber.sucks@cocks>
wrote:

Since Sanders is pushing for single-payer (IOW, government-run) health
care, and since health care amounts to over 18% of our total economy,
I'd say he is at least borderline.

--
Ed Huntress

[Fred Wingo]

Single payer, not single provider. Like Medicare - Medicare does not
provide health care; it pays for (some of) it.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:30:08 -0700, Fred Wingo <wieber.sucks@cocks>

I'm going to disagree for this reason: You may recall that I was once
Sr. Medical Editor for Publicis Managed Markets. "Managed markets" are
Medicare, Medicaid, PPOs, and HMOs. By "managed," they mean "dictates
care by declaring what will and will not be paid for."

As your quote from Webster's says, socialism means that government
owns or CONTROLS major industries. Health care is a major industry --
the biggest, I think. Under single- payer plans, such as VA
healthcare, Medicaid and Medicare, the government controls the
providers by dictating what will be paid for. It's not absolute
control -- doctors can decide to work for free -- but it's damned
close.

So, although Bernie's larger program is, as you say, social democracy,
in this particular case he is pure socialist. So are many others. I
happen to believe that single-payer is inevitable, after we spend
another decade or two being screwed by the insurance industry. They
aren't crooks; they just can't help themselves, because there are no
real markets in medicine and they have shareholders to satisfy. Thus,
pre-existing exclusions, $700 Epipens, and the rest of the screw job
we call U.S. health care.

My point was that the right would brutilize him over his socialist
ideas. He would have been creamed in the general election.

--
Ed Huntress

[Shelter From the Storm]

Sanders recognizes and accepts that health care is a disaster and an
embarrassment. He proposes a logical and cost effective solution. That
makes him a conservative. :)

Trump et al, believe there's a magical way for them to claim
conservatism at the same time they promote expensive inefficiency. It
works for them because they're shameless at mining the support of
mental defectives. Many of whom, like Wieber, are busy exacerbating
the situation from every possible angle. Refusing to take any
responsibility, selfishly increasing their need of care, milking the
taxpayers. All while toiling at spreading the disease of ignorance,
crackpot theories, and hate and fear of the "others."

The mess is so polarized now that it seems there will never be a
sensible debate. Perhaps after it all crashes and burns.

[Ed Huntress]

Uh, I think you just stretched the rubber band too far, and it
snapped. d8-)

>
>Trump et al, believe there's a magical way for them to claim
>conservatism at the same time they promote expensive inefficiency. It
>works for them because they're shameless at mining the support of
>mental defectives. Many of whom, like Wieber, are busy exacerbating
>the situation from every possible angle. Refusing to take any
>responsibility, selfishly increasing their need of care, milking the
>taxpayers. All while toiling at spreading the disease of ignorance,
>crackpot theories, and hate and fear of the "others."

I'll agree with some of that, but I'm not going to argue it. I don't
think the issue is mental defectives.

>
>The mess is so polarized now that it seems there will never be a
>sensible debate. Perhaps after it all crashes and burns.

I'm counting on it. I hope I live long enough to see it happen.

--
Ed Huntress

[Frank]

NYC explains it all. You don't live in the real world.
Here's wishing to see you live long enough for global warming to cause
flooding of NYC. You will live a long, long life ;)

[Frank]

When your leaders tell those of you with unhinged minds, and there are
many, that Trump is the worse thing that ever happened, they push them
over the edge.

[Ed Huntress]

This IS the real world, Frank. A large majority of Americans live in
major cities and their suburbs, which is where I am.

This is the USA. New Jersey is one of the 13 original states, unlike
the territories that we never should have allowed into the union. <g>
My family has been here since 1667.

So, where do you live? In one of those places where they count a
prairie dog as 3/5 of a man?

>Here's wishing to see you live long enough for global warming to cause
>flooding of NYC. You will live a long, long life ;)

Probably not. But thanks for the wishes.

--
Ed Huntress

[Frank]

I live in the suburbs of the first state. Maybe 4 miles as the crow
flies from Joe Biden. Unfortunately a blue state.

Violence here is mainly drug dealers killing each other.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:dnfqkcp3dhfu0u697...@4ax.com...
>>....

>>The mess is so polarized now that it seems there will never be a
>>sensible debate. Perhaps after it all crashes and burns.
>
> I'm counting on it. I hope I live long enough to see it happen.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

What other nations' health care systems might we copy?

[Rudy Canoza]

Switzerland's.

Oh, wait - that's basically what the ACA did.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:27:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

Except that Switzerland requires its private insurance companies to
operate as nonprofits for *basic* care. The Swiss did that by
referendum. It changes the incentive structure quite a bit, changing
the companies' goal from making a profit to serving the insured and
increasing their numbers of insureds..

I like their system better than single-payer, but I don't see that
happening in the US.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:53:30 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:36:50 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:12:54 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:35:44 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>>I don't recall anyone calling him a socialist.
>

>In the campaign frey, Republicans call all Democrats socialists sooner
>or later.

Again, I was talking about Trump, not Sanders.

>
>>>They called him a Nazi and a fascist. A sex pervert of several
>>>varieties, and when they were felling charitable, just a corrupt
>>>businessman.
>>
>>Well, that doesn't seem to have bothered his supporters.
>>They seem to>have been comfortable with that.
>

>They saw through Clinton's industrial strength lie machine.

so you're saying that Clinton called him a Nazi? I must have missed

that.

>
>>But if they had called him a socialist, and if it was true, that would
>>have been the end for him.
>

>I submit virtually all the politicritters we have running round of all
>stripes have at least some socialist in them. Bernie is just at one
>end of the bell curve and the so called conservatives are about the
>same spot on the other end.
>
>Then there is a big middle. You have to admit with Social Security,
>FDIC, pension guaranties, Medicare, etc the nation contains a good
>dose of socialism.

Sure. And most Americans like it a lot. Try knocking Social Security
because it's "socialism" in a retirement home sometime. d8-)

>
>>>Each side has their classic names to call the opposition.
>>
>>That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that a
>>socialist has no chance to win in a general election. And that
>>wouldn't be calling him "names." It would be calling him what he is,
>>and which he acknowledges.
>

>How about a whacko mad man that spends his nights popping out insane
>tweets? Still got elected.

There's a huge difference in cultural reaction. "Socialist" makes
people's knees jerk so high that they do a back-flip. "Insane tweets"
has no such cachet. Many people interpret Trump's inanities as
"shaking up the status quo." Never mind that it's doing real damage;
it's the shaking that they care about.

>
>>Follow the money.
>
>Indeed. While you watch Trump, I'll watch Soros and the Clinton
>foundation.

Then let's compare notes in a year.

--
Ed Huntress

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:g5npkcd89uk3blt9q...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:12:54 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:35:44 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:01:04 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>"Ed Huntress" wrote:
>>
>>>>> Sanders isn't a Democrat. He's an interloper, and a leftist-populist
>>>>> like him has no chance whatever of winning a national election.
>>>>
>>>>Sure, and I seem to recall everyone said the same thing about Trump. .
>>>
>>>I don't recall anyone calling him a socialist.
>>
>>They called him a Nazi and a fascist. A sex pervert of several
>>varieties, and when they were felling charitable, just a corrupt
>>businessman.
>
> Well, that doesn't seem to have bothered his supporters. They seem to
> have been comfortable with that.
>
> But if they had called him a socialist, and if it was true, that would
> have been the end for him.

So now we know why the DNC rigged the election....it was true.

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:o1ppkc9s0qr606jf0...@4ax.com...

IOW, if you don't consider someone an 'insider' then the rules shouldn't
apply and you should do anything to destroy them?

Just another example of the mindset of liberals, in which the rules only
apply when they want them to. Also explains why they are so out to try and
destroy the duly elected President of the United States of America...they
don't consider him one of us.

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:lcppkc9mmvap0qka3...@4ax.com...

https://mistercaps.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/democrat-calls-for-violence-get-a-little-bloody/

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:vg6qkc50obukm7nro...@4ax.com...

Hmmm... Seems to me that Hillary had Trump beat hands down.....and that's
just from the immoral, unethical, and illegal acts we already know she is
guilty of.

[Scout]

"Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message

news:_Y93B.110668$WX.5...@fx07.iad...

https://mistercaps.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/democrat-calls-for-violence-get-a-little-bloody/

[Fred Wingo]

Not even close. Trump is the worst chiseling crook ever elected to
anything.

[Fred Wingo]

LOL! Not even close.

[Scout]

"Shelter From the Storm" <sf...@bd.com> wrote in message
news:dpdqkcpd8vf2tu01v...@4ax.com...

Health care is a disaster due to some government regulation.

[Scout]

"Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message

news:CUd3B.71025$z73....@fx22.iad...

Maybe, but I've never seen proof he's ever committed any felonies, Hillary
on the other hand has.

[Scout]

"Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message

news:5Vd3B.71026$z73....@fx22.iad...

Really? How do you get bloody, unless there is violence?

[Ed Huntress]

WTF are you talking about now, Scout? How did they "rig the election"?

--
Ed Huntress

[Frank]

Crooked or not, at least Trump was stealing from other business men and
not the tax payer.

It was Harry Truman that said the only way to get rich in politics is to
be crooked.

Even socialist Sanders is a millionaire and never worked except in politics.

[Ed Huntress]

If Trump was honest, he would have run as a Democrat. If Sanders was
honest, he would have run as an independent.

Both are them are carpetbaggers. Both should have been thrown the hell
out.

>
>Just another example of the mindset of liberals, in which the rules only
>apply when they want them to. Also explains why they are so out to try and
>destroy the duly elected President of the United States of America...they
>don't consider him one of us.

You sure make up a lot of stupid shit, Scout.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

That's because you've been conned. Start your education with the book
_Blinded By the Right_, by David Brock, who was a professional
propagandist for the anti-Clinton reprobates. Brock will tell you how
he made up lies, who got paid off to support them, and who did the
paying.

--
Ed Huntress

[Fred Wingo]

He is obviously speaking metaphorically or figuratively, not literally.
Of course, I don't expect extremists to understand that kind of subtle
nuance.

[Fred Wingo]

Not quite as fantastically as that certified lunatic "BeamMeUpScotty",
but close.

[Ed Huntress]

1) That was 2011, Scout. Trump wasn't even in the rear-view mirror at
that time.

2) Capuano was not a "party leader."

You're just making more stuff up and trying to get away with it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:37:05 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:48:52 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>I'm going to disagree for this reason: You may recall that I was once
>>Sr. Medical Editor for Publicis Managed Markets. "Managed markets" are
>>Medicare, Medicaid, PPOs, and HMOs. By "managed," they mean "dictates
>>care by declaring what will and will not be paid for."
>
>I just heard a wee voice from somewhere in the back of the room mumble
>"death panels".

That would be Sarah Palin, clearing her throat after taking her
anti-anxiety pills. <g>

ALL insurance companies have the equivalent of what Palin called
"death panels." The deciders are called "benefits managers."

>
>>I happen to believe that single-payer is inevitable, after we spend
>>another decade or two being screwed by the insurance industry.
>
>If memory serves, the Ds originally wanted single payer 0bamaCare.

Of course. If you want universal health care to work, that's the way
you do it. You could do what Switzerland did, but our Congress doesn't
have the guts or the brains for it.

>The
>story goes they had to give into the current mess to get thier three
>RHINO Republican votes to pass it. The Rs got no single payer and the
>Ds beat them up in the campaign rhetoric because of it.

That's how the story goes, eh? You do know that the WTC coming down
was an inside government job, right? d8-)

>
>It's also highly suspected 0bamaCare was crafted to fail and force
>single payer. About what Congress if fighting over now.

Highly suspected by whom? The same guy who said Obama was born in
Kenya?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:37:06 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:14:08 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:00:44 -0700, Fred Wingo wrote:
>
>>>Sanders is not a socialist.
>>
>>Since Sanders is pushing for single-payer (IOW, government-run) health
>>care, and since health care amounts to over 18% of our total economy,
>>I'd say he is at least borderline.
>

>If you want to talk about percent of the economy, entitlements and
>corporate welfare amount to much more and there are lots of
>politicritters wearing all sorts of labels that have to account for
>that.

Those are transfers. They aren't part of GDP. Health care is.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:43:48 -0700, Fred Wingo <wieber.sucks@cocks>
wrote:

Ah,well, BMUS is a clinical study unto himself. Scout mostly ties
things into knots and then squeezes the rationality out of them.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:37:02 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:42:23 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:57:31 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>
>>> Listen to you tubes of your leaders like Pelosi who tell
>>>us that Trump is the worse thing to ever happen to the American people.
>>
>>She's probably right about that. Living in the NYC metro area, I've
>>been following him for 40 years. Once a lying dirtbag, always a lying
>>dirtbag.
>

>And Hillary was a NY Senator. Did you follow her? Did you find her the
>second Lady of Lourdes or another lying dirt bag? What's your
>assessment of the Clinton Foundation dealings and didn't Chelsea have
>such a nice wedding?

I'm not defending Hillary. I'm saying Trump is a dirtbag.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Scout" <me4...@removethis.this2.centurylink.net> wrote in message
news:oiie5b$si2$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message
> news:an%2B.14777$on3....@fx26.iad...



>>>>

>>>>> There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the
>>>>> aid of the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the
>>>>> nuts in their party to violence.
>>>>

>>>> You have not a shred of evidence of any party leaders inciting
>>>> anyone to violence.
>>>
>>> You mean besides their public appeals for violence against Trump
>>> and other conservatives?
>>
>> There haven't been any of those.
>
> Apparently you've not been listening to the news then.

http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/state-democratic-party-chair-removes-official-after-offensive-remarks-about/article_d9157d0e-5781-11e7-b24c-e34cfa0fe0c0.html

[Fred Wingo]

Here we go: the Kansas Democratic Party official, Phil Montag, said
some pretty awful things abut Scalise, but he did not "call for" any
violence, and the head of the state party fired him.

[Frank]

You gotta do better than reference David Brock, the founder of Media
Matters.

[raykeller]

"Scout" <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote in message
news:oijp5o$8uf$1...@dont-email.me...

Edith is a far leftwing fring kook

[de chucka]

snip

> You gotta do better than reference David Brock, the founder of Media
> Matters.

breitbart.com?

[Ed Huntress]

I don't think you'd say that if you knew the background and followed
it for the last few decades. Brock is one of those True Believers who
flipped from one side to the other. But at the time he was working to
undermine Bill Clinton, he was a rabid right-winger. He was the only
"journalist" in D.C. who drove a great big black Mercedes Benz -- paid
for by Richard Mellon Scaife, with money wiped clean of his
fingerprints.

He also wrote _The Real Anita Hill_, which he later explained actually
was "A Pack of Lies About Anita Hill." He later apologized to her, but
the damage was already done -- lying dirtbag Clarence Thomas snuck on
to the Supreme Court.

Brock knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:54:55 -0700, "raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:

Aw, Kopypasta, are all of those lumps on your head still hurting? I
don't want to disable you completely -- I'll use a softer nerf bat and
I'll try to avoid the soft spot in the middle.

--
Ed Huntress

[Frank]

Besides, he's a fairy too. Had to keep that hidden.
Think it time to kf this stupid thread.

[Fred Wingo]

On 6/23/2017 5:41 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:25:44 -0700, Fred Wingo wrote:
>> On 6/23/2017 2:48 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

>>> "Scout" wrote
>>>> "Fred Wingo" wrote

>
>>>>>> You mean besides their public appeals for violence against Trump
>>>>>> and other conservatives?
>>>>>
>>>>> There haven't been any of those.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you've not been listening to the news then.
>>> <http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/state-democratic-party-chair-removes-official-after-offensive-remarks-about/article_d9157d0e-5781-11e7-b24c-e34cfa0fe0c0.html>
>>
>> Here we go: the Kansas Democratic Party official, Phil Montag, said
>> some pretty awful things abut Scalise, but he did not "call for" any
>> violence, and the head of the state party fired him.
>

> Kick the man while he's down. Literally. On life support. While the D
> PR people are polishing thier image with platitudes about both parties
> pulling together in a common front against violence.
>
> Pretty much he is explaining why Scalise deserved getting shot. It's
> not hard for the violent morons on the right to get the message to go
> get 'em.

I'm just saying this wild charge from right-wingnuts like scooter that
"the Democrats" are calling for violence against conservatives and
Republicans is a lie. It's a lie.

[de chucka]

There are no lies any more just 'fake news'

[Jim Wilkins]

"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:b2drkclgdd4gttcdu...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:25:44 -0700, Fred Wingo wrote:

>>On 6/23/2017 2:48 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

>>> "Scout" wrote
>>>> "Fred Wingo" wrote

>
>>>>>> You mean besides their public appeals for violence against
>>>>>> Trump
>>>>>> and other conservatives?
>>>>>
>>>>> There haven't been any of those.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you've not been listening to the news then.
>>><http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/state-democratic-party-chair-removes-official-after-offensive-remarks-about/article_d9157d0e-5781-11e7-b24c-e34cfa0fe0c0.html>
>>
>>Here we go: the Kansas Democratic Party official, Phil Montag, said
>>some pretty awful things abut Scalise, but he did not "call for" any
>>violence, and the head of the state party fired him.
>

> Kick the man while he's down. Literally. On life support. While the
> D
> PR people are polishing thier image with platitudes about both
> parties
> pulling together in a common front against violence.
>
> Pretty much he is explaining why Scalise deserved getting shot. It's
> not hard for the violent morons on the right to get the message to
> go
> get 'em.
>

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2017/06/15/20-liberal-calls-for-violence-against-conservatives-in-quotes-n2341401

https://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/more-violent-democrats-congressman-paul-kanjorski-on-florida-governor-rick-scott-put-him-against-the-wall-and-shoot-him/

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:druqkcpmllmf75881...@4ax.com...

OK, what criminal acts has it been proven Trump has committed

----> Insert list here.

> Start your education with the book
> _Blinded By the Right_, by David Brock, who was a professional
> propagandist for the anti-Clinton reprobates. Brock will tell you how
> he made up lies, who got paid off to support them, and who did the
> paying.

Really? Did he work for the FBI?

[Scout]

"Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message

news:u2f3B.3898$9D5....@fx12.iad...

Really? Sorry, by what mystical means do you obtain that from his words?

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:90tqkc9p0s1vt1i0o...@4ax.com...

http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/dnc-we-rigged-primaries-so-what/

>How did they "rig the election"?

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

Do try to keep up.

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:jkuqkcpngiom7t9p3...@4ax.com...

Really? You know what party Trump represents with?

Further if he's such a 'Democrat' then shouldn't they been falling over
themselves to allow him and the GOP to push through the Democrat's agenda
instead of opposing both at every turn?

If he's a 'Democrat' then the Democrats sure can't seem to see it.

> If Sanders was
> honest, he would have run as an independent.

Why? His agenda is very much of the Democrat sort, and lots of Democrats
accept, support and would promote his agenda.

> Both are them are carpetbaggers. Both should have been thrown the hell
> out.

Then why did so many Democrats support Sanders then? I mean if he's such a
contradiction to what Democrats stand for....why did he have so much popular
support? Indeed why would it be necessary for the DNC to actively work to
insure that his Democrat supporters wouldn't get him the nomination?

Sorry, but your lips are moving, but all that's coming out seem to be
contrary to the reality.

>>Just another example of the mindset of liberals, in which the rules only
>>apply when they want them to. Also explains why they are so out to try and
>>destroy the duly elected President of the United States of America...they
>>don't consider him one of us.
>
> You sure make up a lot of stupid shit, Scout.

You're the one telling us that the rules can and should be ignored if one is
an 'outsider'.

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:3a1rkcp8v30ita5g0...@4ax.com...

And Hillary is a worse dirtbag than Trump. As you say once a lying dirtbag,
always a lying dirtbag and Hillary has been lying to us for her entire
political career.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:15:59 -0400, "Scout"

That's not an election. That's a primary nomination. And it's up to
the Democratic Party, and to the Republican Party, how they want to
decide on a candidate to submit for...

...the election. Do try to pay attention to what you say.

--
Ed Huntress
>

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:23:08 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:06:01 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:37:05 -0700, Winston_Smith
>><inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:48:52 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm going to disagree for this reason: You may recall that I was once
>>>>Sr. Medical Editor for Publicis Managed Markets. "Managed markets" are
>>>>Medicare, Medicaid, PPOs, and HMOs. By "managed," they mean "dictates
>>>>care by declaring what will and will not be paid for."
>>>
>>>I just heard a wee voice from somewhere in the back of the room mumble
>>>"death panels".
>>
>>That would be Sarah Palin, clearing her throat after taking her
>>anti-anxiety pills. <g>
>>
>>ALL insurance companies have the equivalent of what Palin called
>>"death panels." The deciders are called "benefits managers."
>

>That's a refreshing change from the usual denial they exist and
>calling anyone that realised it crazy.

>
>>>>I happen to believe that single-payer is inevitable, after we spend
>>>>another decade or two being screwed by the insurance industry.
>>>
>>>If memory serves, the Ds originally wanted single payer 0bamaCare.
>>
>>Of course. If you want universal health care to work, that's the way
>>you do it. You could do what Switzerland did, but our Congress doesn't
>>have the guts or the brains for it.
>>
>>>The
>>>story goes they had to give into the current mess to get thier three
>>>RHINO Republican votes to pass it. The Rs got no single payer and the
>>>Ds beat them up in the campaign rhetoric because of it.
>>
>>That's how the story goes, eh? You do know that the WTC coming down
>>was an inside government job, right? d8-)
>

>Deflection, but no rebuttal.

>
>>>It's also highly suspected 0bamaCare was crafted to fail and force
>>>single payer. About what Congress if fighting over now.
>>
>>Highly suspected by whom? The same guy who said Obama was born in
>>Kenya?
>

>Deflection, but no rebuttal.

<g> I won't waste my time trying to rebut some anonymous shit you
pulled out of your ass, Winston. If you have some real evidence, I'm
interested. Otherwise, it's just another empty conspiracy story.

Everyone who knows something about the subject and who wants universal
health care (like me) wanted a single-payer system. We also knew we
souldn't get it. What we'd get would be a mess that tried to hold the
traditional insurance companies together with spit and bailing wire,
trying to adapt them to the idea of health care as a social service.

I was pretty sure it wouldn't work, but that the ACA would become so
popular that we'd eventually go to single-payer or, less likely,
something like the Swiss system. Then we'd get to work on the real
problem, which is the cost of health care itself. Insurance is just
the tail; health care costs are the dog.

The ACA, it turns out, has become popular. But too late.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:26:04 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:08:26 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:37:06 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:14:08 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>>Since Sanders is pushing for single-payer (IOW, government-run) health
>>>>care, and since health care amounts to over 18% of our total economy,
>>>>I'd say he is at least borderline.
>>>
>>>If you want to talk about percent of the economy, entitlements and
>>>corporate welfare amount to much more and there are lots of
>>>politicritters wearing all sorts of labels that have to account for
>>>that.
>>
>>Those are transfers. They aren't part of GDP. Health care is.
>

>Technicality. They are where tax money is spent and where borrowing
>goes when taxes aren't enough.

It involves a lot of money, but it's just money that's getting shifted
around. It's not part of economic activity. Health care is economic
activity. It's part of the economy, and, at 18% we know exactly how
much of the economy it represents.

>
>Socialist thinking is not limited by how your accountant does the book
>keeping.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. If your accountant knows
how to keep the books, he knows the difference between a transfer,
which is a matter of legislation, and a contribution to GDP, which is
economic activity.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:21:39 -0400, "Scout"

Yeah. The one he gave just shy of $500,000 to and for whom he was a
supporter of Chuck Schumer on radio and TV -- the Democrats.

>
>Further if he's such a 'Democrat' then shouldn't they been falling over
>themselves to allow him and the GOP to push through the Democrat's agenda
>instead of opposing both at every turn?

"Allow them"? When did the GOP start pushing the Democrats' agenda?

>
>If he's a 'Democrat' then the Democrats sure can't seem to see it.

They never wanted him to run for office, and he knew it.

>
>> If Sanders was
>> honest, he would have run as an independent.
>
>Why? His agenda is very much of the Democrat sort, and lots of Democrats
>accept, support and would promote his agenda.

Then let him run as "Very Much of the Democrat Sort." And either join
the Democratic Party if he wants to run as a Democrat, or look
somewhere else.

>
>
>> Both are them are carpetbaggers. Both should have been thrown the hell
>> out.
>
>Then why did so many Democrats support Sanders then? I mean if he's such a
>contradiction to what Democrats stand for....why did he have so much popular
>support? Indeed why would it be necessary for the DNC to actively work to
>insure that his Democrat supporters wouldn't get him the nomination?

This is a stupid and sophomoric question, but I'll answer it once.

The US has two viable parties. We don't have a viable Socialist party
or a viable Reactionary-Right party. But we have some socialists and
reactionary rightists. They hang out on the margins of the two main
parties and are generally ignored in national elections.

But give them an opening and they come rushing out. Bernie was
attractive not only to them, but also to the left wing of the real
Democrats. He pulled some decent numbers; he was a protest candidate,
like Gene McCarthy in '68. Remember what happened then?

But he is not a Democrat, and running him in a national election would
have been suicide. So the party made sure he didn't win.

The Republicans foolishly didn't do the same with Trump. They should
have. So now they have a majority and can't do a damned thing with it.

>
>Sorry, but your lips are moving, but all that's coming out seem to be
>contrary to the reality.

You're just a troll, Scout.

>
>
>>>Just another example of the mindset of liberals, in which the rules only
>>>apply when they want them to. Also explains why they are so out to try and
>>>destroy the duly elected President of the United States of America...they
>>>don't consider him one of us.
>>
>> You sure make up a lot of stupid shit, Scout.
>
>You're the one telling us that the rules can and should be ignored if one is
>an 'outsider'.

I said no such thing. The parties make their own rules. You're making
up more stupid shit.

--
Ed Huntress

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:6gsrkchvvrh4p0c88...@4ax.com...

via election.......

Thanks for playing....

[Scout]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:3ftrkcpe3nie7mjr3...@4ax.com...

Keyword: was

People change. Obama help them change....into Republicans.

>>Further if he's such a 'Democrat' then shouldn't they been falling over
>>themselves to allow him and the GOP to push through the Democrat's agenda
>>instead of opposing both at every turn?
>
> "Allow them"? When did the GOP start pushing the Democrats' agenda?

Oh, so now you're telling me that Trump is NOT a Democrat then.

Strange, if he's a Democrat, then shouldn't he have the agenda of a
Democrat?

Looks like you just stuck your foot in your mouth Ed, and then chewed it
off.

>>If he's a 'Democrat' then the Democrats sure can't seem to see it.
>
> They never wanted him to run for office, and he knew it.

I see...He's a Democrat that Democrats won't accept as a Democrat.

And you wonder why he's now a Republican.

>>> If Sanders was
>>> honest, he would have run as an independent.
>>
>>Why? His agenda is very much of the Democrat sort, and lots of Democrats
>>accept, support and would promote his agenda.
>
> Then let him run as "Very Much of the Democrat Sort." And either join
> the Democratic Party if he wants to run as a Democrat, or look
> somewhere else.

Except, I don't see the Democrats supporting this "Very Much of a Democrat
Sort" instead they seem intent on stopping anything and everything he does.

Seems that according to you we have a "Democrat" with an agenda that isn't
that of the Democrats.

How are you a Democrat without their agenda?

>
>>
>>
>>> Both are them are carpetbaggers. Both should have been thrown the hell
>>> out.
>>
>>Then why did so many Democrats support Sanders then? I mean if he's such a
>>contradiction to what Democrats stand for....why did he have so much
>>popular
>>support? Indeed why would it be necessary for the DNC to actively work to
>>insure that his Democrat supporters wouldn't get him the nomination?
>
> This is a stupid and sophomoric question, but I'll answer it once.

On the contrary, it's a critical and key question and the fact that you
dismiss it out of hand shows how flawed Democrats are in their thinking.

> The US has two viable parties.

No, we actually have several viable parties. Indeed if all those who don't
vote because 'their vote doesn't matter' were to all get together they could
elect whoever they wanted. This notion of a binary choice is one fostered by
the two parties in part to keep themselves in power to prevent interlopers
from taking that power from them.

But whatever,

> We don't have a viable Socialist party
> or a viable Reactionary-Right party.

I don't know, seem to me the Democrats do a pretty good imitation of a
Socialist Party, though the GOP has it's moments as well.

> But we have some socialists and
> reactionary rightists. They hang out on the margins of the two main
> parties and are generally ignored in national elections.

And if they aren't then you're willing to forgo the rules and the will of
the people to slap them down....right?

> But give them an opening and they come rushing out. Bernie was
> attractive not only to them, but also to the left wing of the real
> Democrats. He pulled some decent numbers; he was a protest candidate,
> like Gene McCarthy in '68. Remember what happened then?

Something like what happened with Hillary Clinton?

> But he is not a Democrat, and running him in a national election would
> have been suicide. So the party made sure he didn't win.

IOW, they made a fraud of their own system to deny the candidate that the
majority of the members of the party wanted for the one that the party elite
wanted instead....and then they claim to represent the people.

> The Republicans foolishly didn't do the same with Trump. They should
> have. So now they have a majority and can't do a damned thing with it.

Which isn't the fault of Trump....but rather weak assed Republicans who
would have been there no matter who was President.

I mean I could see it if Trump were rejecting the bills passed by
Republicans....but he's not doing that. Indeed he shows a willingness to
sign such bills if only the Republicans in Congress would get it through and
on his desk.

>>Sorry, but your lips are moving, but all that's coming out seem to be
>>contrary to the reality.
>
> You're just a troll, Scout.

No, I just point out your hypocrisy.

>>>>Just another example of the mindset of liberals, in which the rules only
>>>>apply when they want them to. Also explains why they are so out to try
>>>>and
>>>>destroy the duly elected President of the United States of
>>>>America...they
>>>>don't consider him one of us.
>>>
>>> You sure make up a lot of stupid shit, Scout.
>>
>>You're the one telling us that the rules can and should be ignored if one
>>is
>>an 'outsider'.
>
> I said no such thing. The parties make their own rules. You're making
> up more stupid shit.

Sure, and when it comes to Democrats they are willing to ignore the rules
they've made if the party elite chose to do so arbitrarily.

So much for the claim that Democrats represent the will of the
people.....because as demonstrated, they are utterly willing to ignore the
will of the people.....even those within their own party.

Then you wonder why other people have issues with Democrats, because here
you are SUPPORTING the DNC's fixing their own election. Further if they are
going to do that with their own internal election.....what makes you think
they would stop there?

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:9lsrkcp3g9i4ffr51...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:23:08 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>

> ...................

> <g> I won't waste my time trying to rebut some anonymous shit you
> pulled out of your ass, Winston. If you have some real evidence, I'm
> interested. Otherwise, it's just another empty conspiracy story.
>
> Everyone who knows something about the subject and who wants
> universal
> health care (like me) wanted a single-payer system. We also knew we
> souldn't get it. What we'd get would be a mess that tried to hold
> the
> traditional insurance companies together with spit and bailing wire,
> trying to adapt them to the idea of health care as a social service.
>
> I was pretty sure it wouldn't work, but that the ACA would become so
> popular that we'd eventually go to single-payer or, less likely,
> something like the Swiss system. Then we'd get to work on the real
> problem, which is the cost of health care itself. Insurance is just
> the tail; health care costs are the dog.
>
> The ACA, it turns out, has become popular. But too late.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

More likely we'd get an expansion of our existing single-payer system,
the VA.

[Ed Huntress]

Possibly. As Bernie says, "Medicare for all." It's probably the most
effective part of our health care system. If we had that and price
controls on drugs, our costs would go 'way down.

But price controls would be tricky. As it is, the pharma companies
(who were once my clients) use the US as the fool who will pay
anything they ask. They use us to amortise their research and
marketing costs. No other developed country in the world allows them
to do that.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:8otskc5783klb76e0...@4ax.com...

How does Swiss pharma fund research?

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 10:55:33 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

Roche and Novartis, the big Swiss pharma companies, raise their prices
in the US when the Swiss government caps the prices they can charge in
Switzerland.

That's how most of them work in most countries. Do you feel like a
sucker? We are all suckers.

The link below is three years old, but it's pretty accurate. Based on
my own experience, though, it underestimates the effect of
price-shifting to the US. Price differentials often run 3 or 4 to 1;
I've seen 10:1 in a couple of instances -- even more.

My wife currently is using Acyclovir ointment; a 30 g tube is $760,
and my pharmacy pays $600 for it. (It costs me $5; my insurance covers
it) In Canada, it's around $30.

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/20/10-reasons-your-prescription-drug-prices-are-so-pa.aspx

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:09:59 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:12:35 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:23:08 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>Deflection, but no rebuttal.
>>
>><g> I won't waste my time trying to rebut some anonymous shit you
>>pulled out of your ass, Winston. If you have some real evidence, I'm
>>interested. Otherwise, it's just another empty conspiracy story.
>

>But you DO have time to deflect. How interesting.
>
>*I* have to prove what I post but *you* can reject it without any
>proof. How convenient.

You just say any shit that you pick up from place unknown with no
attribution, and you expect me to "rebut" it. That's what Gunner used
to do. How convenient for you!

>
>>Everyone who knows something about the subject
>

>And the rest are rejected out of hand. How liberal.

How reasonable, you mean. You either support what you claim, or it
will be rejected.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:12:49 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:17:13 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:26:04 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>Socialist thinking is not limited by how your accountant does the book
>>>keeping.
>>
>>I don't know what that's supposed to mean. If your accountant knows
>>how to keep the books, he knows the difference between a transfer,
>>which is a matter of legislation, and a contribution to GDP, which is
>>economic activity.
>

>It's all money that flows out of the public treasury.

No it's not. Health care flows out of several places, including our
pockets. But it's for a service delivered. Thus, it's part of the
economy.

>You say one
>expenditure is bad but another is good because it has a different name
>on the books. Spare me the lecture on book keeping. I understand it.

Apparently you don't. You're confusing transfer payments with actual
economic exchanges.

>But you don't seem to understand that before you spend money on
>anything you first have to find it.

Huh?

--
Ed Huntress

[raykeller]

"Scout" <me4...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote in message

news:oil238$k6a$1...@dont-email.me...

The democrat party has adopted all the planks of the communist party
Hillery is a member of the lawyers guild-the legal arm of Communist Party
USA
Communists like muslims belive the end justifies the means and have no
compunction about lying to further the cause

[Wiley E. Coyote]

Fred Wingo <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in

news:an%2B.14777$on3....@fx26.iad:

> On 6/22/2017 6:04 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message
>> news:gjZ2B.110422$WX.2...@fx07.iad...

>>> On 6/22/2017 1:00 PM, Frank wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2017 2:53 PM, Fred Wingo wrote:

>>>>> On 6/22/2017 10:28 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:24:01, "raykeller@looser_losers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3562963/posts
>>>>>>> SeanFBI: Virginia Gunman Visited Bernie Sanders' Office Prior to
>>>>>>> Shooting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The FBI released new information Wednesday on the lone gunman who
>>>>>>> critically
>>>>>>> injured a congressman when he opened fire at a GOP baseball game
>>>>>>> last week,
>>>>>>> saying the suspect had visited the office of Vermont Senator
>>>>>>> Bernie Sanders
>>>>>>> and had exchanged emails with two senators from Illinois prior to
>>>>>>> the shooting, reports ... The FBI also said the shooter had been
>>>>>>> in contact with
>>>>>>> the offices of democratic senators Dick Durbin and Tammy
>>>>>>> Duckworth.
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Met with Sanders and communicated with 2 Democrat Senators before
>>>>>>> opening
>>>>>>> fire on the GOP Baseball team.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have morphed "visited office" into "met with Sanders".
>>>>>

>>>>> The shitbag is doing worse than that. He is all but claiming that

>>>>> Sanders played a role in planning and carrying out the shooting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sanders would have never gotten traction as a democrat if not for
>>>> those looking to only alternative to Crooked Hillary.
>>>

>>> That doesn't even mean anything. He got traction precisely because a
>>> large part of the party wanted a more "progressive" candidate.
>>>

>>>> There is a real hateful bunch running their party now with the aid of
>>>> the media and the Hollywood crowd. They are inciting the nuts in
>>>> their party to violence.
>>>

>>> You have not a shred of evidence of any party leaders inciting anyone
>>> to violence.
>>
>> You mean besides their public appeals for violence against Trump and
>> other conservatives?
>
> There haven't been any of those.
>

Lying piece of shit.

Democrats 'encouraging' death threats

The House Republican who received a threatening email Wednesday that warned
"one down, 216 to go" after a shooting at a baseball practice that targeted
Republican lawmakers argued Democrats are willing to do anything to make
sure she loses in 2018.





"They want me to lose and they want to put somebody else in place. So
they're willing to do almost anything and they're encouraging people to do
this unfortunately," Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., told Fox News Thursday.

Tenney says she has been receiving threatening phone messages and emails
since she took office Jan. 3. She also said she received a message on
Memorial Day wishing her son, who is a first attendant in the Marine Corps,
comes back in a body bag.

She feels violence has been normalized as a result of the polarized
discourse in the country and believes that groups prone to violence such as
the Resist and Indivisible movements have been emboldened by the backing of
Democrats.

"I think this has reached a level that violence in the situation has been
normalized. I have to say that the Resist movements, the Indivisible
movements, this movement that has been supported unfortunately by the
Democrats," Tenney said.

Tenney remains hopeful the freshman class of lawmakers will adhere to its
pledge of civility and will continue to work together.

"I think it was our statement as a freshman class to recognize the level of
the rhetoric that was unacceptable and understanding that yes, we disagree
on policy, we should have debate, it's the American way. But, the First
Amendment doesn't include violence, not something that we try to stand
for," Tenney added.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/claudia-tenney-democrats-encouraging-
death-threats/article/2626123


Soon it will be time to bulldoze your corpse into a mass grave.

--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:44:59 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 16:37:50 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>Start your education with the book
>>_Blinded By the Right_, by David Brock, who was a professional
>>propagandist for the anti-Clinton reprobates. Brock will tell you how
>>he made up lies, who got paid off to support them, and who did the
>>paying.
>

>You don't sell many books saying it was a routine campaign and
>everybody pretty much stuck to the rules.

Read it instead of guessing what's in it.

>
>Sure, both sides put out BS about the other. Clinton may in fact have
>shoveled more s**t than Trump.

Not by a mile. Here's a very conservative list of Trump's most recent
lies, many about Democrats:

"Trump Told Public Lies or Falsehoods Every Day for His First 40 Days"

That's an impressive record! The man is sick:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

>
>Along comes your lad to spin Clinton clean.

It wasn't about Hillary. Read it instead of guessing. It's a good
read.

--
Ed Huntress

[Fred Wingo]

Yes.

[Fred Wingo]

On 6/23/2017 7:24 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3a1rkcp8v30ita5g0...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:37:02 -0700, Winston_Smith
>> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:42:23 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:57:31 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Listen to you tubes of your leaders like Pelosi who tell
>>>>> us that Trump is the worse thing to ever happen to the American
>>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> She's probably right about that. Living in the NYC metro area, I've
>>>> been following him for 40 years. Once a lying dirtbag, always a lying
>>>> dirtbag.
>>>
>>> And Hillary was a NY Senator. Did you follow her? Did you find her the
>>> second Lady of Lourdes or another lying dirt bag? What's your
>>> assessment of the Clinton Foundation dealings and didn't Chelsea have
>>> such a nice wedding?
>>
>> I'm not defending Hillary. I'm saying Trump is a dirtbag.
>
> And Hillary is a worse dirtbag than Trump.

No. She's bad, but he's worse.

[Ed Huntress]

I think you're looking in a mirror. NONE of that crap is about party
leaders encouraging violence. It's about anonymous dirtbags making
threats, which should be very familiar to anyone here.

Why is it that you and Scout, among others, don't bother to read what
you're responding to?

--
Ed Huntress

[Shelter From the Storm]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 12:16:49 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:48:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:09:59 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:12:35 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:23:08 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Deflection, but no rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>><g> I won't waste my time trying to rebut some anonymous shit you
>>>>pulled out of your ass, Winston. If you have some real evidence, I'm
>>>>interested. Otherwise, it's just another empty conspiracy story.
>>>
>>>But you DO have time to deflect. How interesting.
>>>
>>>*I* have to prove what I post but *you* can reject it without any
>>>proof. How convenient.
>>
>>You just say any shit that you pick up from place unknown with no
>>attribution, and you expect me to "rebut" it. That's what Gunner used
>>to do. How convenient for you!
>

>Sorry Charlie, no. This thread has gone just like many we have been
>in. Polite back and forth until I hit something that's a problem for
>you. Then it ends the way most liberals on usenet sign off a thread.
>Foul language and personal attack.
>
>You chug along fine as long as there is a response you can make. Along
>the way you pontificate from your high bench of "learning and
>experience" and trash a few posters as side issues. On close
>observation, what you post is just what you think backed by as little
>substance as the US dollar; just your opinion all dressed up pretty.
>The people you trash are trashed without your bothering to give
>chapter and verse of why they are wrong or what the truth is. It's
>just defect from the issue and do a personal attack on the poster.
>Neatly shifts the thread from issues to a name calling contest.
>
>Your authorities are usually things like "everyone who knows" and
>occasionally some obscure research paper you are hoping no one has
>access to. When someone does, it usually turns out your reading of the
>paper is way off the mark.
>
>You have declared for years you are Republican. I've never once seen
>you make a kind remark about any R or any R program instead always
>defending the Democrats and the most liberal viewpoints. Sometimes you
>are right, far from always, but it's telling how one sided your
>postings are. If you are registered R, it's either a cover for
>business purposes or you intellectually fail to have the least
>agreement with the party you chose to join. You would fit well in the
>Democrat party however.
>
>You clearly have time to come here and debate, usually several times a
>day. You will ride a thread for as long as you perceive you are making
>points. Then, when you get stuck, poor boy "doesn't have time". Poor
>boy can't be bothered explaining he has ducked an issue by saying
>something like your opponent "just sucked it out of his ass".
>
>You have become classic and predictable.

You are full of shit. And tribally pig-headed, as usual. You may as
well just copy and paste Wieber's "point set match." There's every bit
as much fact in it as what you just wrote.

BTW, there are two things I don't understand about Ed. Why he debates
politely with folks as helpless as you, and why he gives them too much
credit when rating their intelligence. Ed seems to have a charity rule
where he allows his opponents about 200 non sequiturs before he gets
pissed off. And you have a talent for reaching that limit faster than
most.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 12:16:49 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:48:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:09:59 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:12:35 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:23:08 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Deflection, but no rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>><g> I won't waste my time trying to rebut some anonymous shit you
>>>>pulled out of your ass, Winston. If you have some real evidence, I'm
>>>>interested. Otherwise, it's just another empty conspiracy story.
>>>
>>>But you DO have time to deflect. How interesting.
>>>
>>>*I* have to prove what I post but *you* can reject it without any
>>>proof. How convenient.
>>
>>You just say any shit that you pick up from place unknown with no
>>attribution, and you expect me to "rebut" it. That's what Gunner used
>>to do. How convenient for you!
>

>Sorry Charlie, no. This thread has gone just like many we have been
>in. Polite back and forth until I hit something that's a problem for
>you. Then it ends the way most liberals on usenet sign off a thread.
>Foul language and personal attack.

Take a look at the parts of the thread you snipped. You made some
empty assertions with no attribution and expected me to "rebut" them.

You dump bullshit and conspiracy theories and then you expect me to
"debate" them. As I said, that's what Gunner did for years.

Come up with some evidence, and we''ll discuss it. Until then, don't
waste everyone's time.

>
>You chug along fine as long as there is a response you can make. Along
>the way you pontificate from your high bench of "learning and
>experience" and trash a few posters as side issues. On close
>observation, what you post is just what you think backed by as little
>substance as the US dollar; just your opinion all dressed up pretty.

Bullshit. I consistently back up my assertions, especially if I'm
asked to do so. That's what drives you batty.

>The people you trash are trashed without your bothering to give
>chapter and verse of why they are wrong or what the truth is. It's
>just defect from the issue and do a personal attack on the poster.
>Neatly shifts the thread from issues to a name calling contest.

If they do what you just did above, they deserve it.

>
>Your authorities are usually things like "everyone who knows" and
>occasionally some obscure research paper you are hoping no one has
>access to.

I post links, Winston. You post nonsense with nothing to back it up.

>When someone does, it usually turns out your reading of the
>paper is way off the mark.

Bullshit. I actually read anything I link to, unlike the rightards,
who dump anything that has an appealing headline. It's obvious they
usually don't read what they post, and if they do, they never check
facts. Checking facts is something I've spent a lifetime doing.

>
>You have declared for years you are Republican. I've never once seen
>you make a kind remark about any R or any R program instead always
>defending the Democrats and the most liberal viewpoints.

Today's "Republicans" are mostly phonies -- rightist-populists and
paleocons who don't even know what conservatism is. I joined the
party at the tail end of the moderate days, when sensible people made
up most of the party. They were a lot more rational than the
Democrats.

There are still some of us around. After Trump crashes and burns,
maybe the party will regain its senses. Meantime, I vote for whomever
I think is best. We had a crappy Democrat re-upping for governor a
while back, so I voted for Chris Crisco. I no longer volunteer for my
county Republican convention, but I used to.

>Sometimes you
>are right, far from always, but it's telling how one sided your
>postings are. If you are registered R, it's either a cover for
>business purposes or you intellectually fail to have the least
>agreement with the party you chose to join. You would fit well in the
>Democrat party however.

I fit in well with real conservatives -- people who know and have read
the founders of conservatism*, and who know where their ideas come
from. They've scrutinized the ideas. I also get along well with
moderate progressives. They have better goals, but lack good ideas for
achieving them. So I take some from both. That's what some people call
a "radical centrist." It's similar to old-fashioned liberal
conservatism, which contrasts with classical liberalism. You can look
them up if those terms give you a headache.

There are only a few real conservatives here, and one calls himself a
"libertarian." He's not. <g>

>
>You clearly have time to come here and debate, usually several times a
>day. You will ride a thread for as long as you perceive you are making
>points.

As long as rationality and facts are responded to, for the most part.

> Then, when you get stuck, poor boy "doesn't have time".

Often true. What we get stuck on, for the most part, is irrationality
or phony "facts," like yours above.

>Poor
>boy can't be bothered explaining he has ducked an issue by saying
>something like your opponent "just sucked it out of his ass".

That's where you got it. That's why you can't support it. Like most
paleocons, you often don't even know where your ideas came from.

>
>You have become classic and predictable.

I like "classic." <g> As for being predictable, I am pretty damned
consistent in my views. I'll accept that.

--
Ed Huntress

* Edmund Burke, Oakeshott, Santayana, Disraeli, and, in modern times,
Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, George Will, and Goldwater. Read
them and you'll know what "conservative" really means.

If you have time for only one, read Kirk, _The Conservative Mind_. If
you want the founding ideas, read Burke, _Reflections on the
Revolution in France_. He was a Member of Parliament and critic of the
French Revolution but he supported the American Revolution, and he was
a contemporary of both. It's instructive to learn why he reacted the
way he did to each revolution. That's where the heart of modern
conservatism lies.

Very few people here have that heart. They just hate anything that
doesn't lie in their comfort zone. That's a paleocon. As I said, most
Republicans right now are either paleocons or rightist-populists, or
some mixture of the two.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 12:19:20 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:53:35 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:12:49 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>But you don't seem to understand that before you spend money on
>>>anything you first have to find it.
>>
>>Huh?
>

>The classic reply from the left.

If you're still talking about transfer payments, there's no problem
"finding it." You do what started in a big way with Ronald Reagan: You
borrow it.

Do you know what the Capital Account is, in national bookkeeping? It's
the foreign investments from which you borrow. That's where a lot of
our transfer payments come from. The rest, like SS, come mostly from
taxes.

There is no exchange. There is no economic activity. It's just
transfers, from taxation and borrowing.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:33:53 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:17:38 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:37:02 -0700, Winston_Smith
>><inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:42:23 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:57:31 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Listen to you tubes of your leaders like Pelosi who tell
>>>>>us that Trump is the worse thing to ever happen to the American people.
>>>>
>>>>She's probably right about that. Living in the NYC metro area, I've
>>>>been following him for 40 years. Once a lying dirtbag, always a lying
>>>>dirtbag.
>>>
>>>And Hillary was a NY Senator. Did you follow her? Did you find her the
>>>second Lady of Lourdes or another lying dirt bag? What's your
>>>assessment of the Clinton Foundation dealings and didn't Chelsea have
>>>such a nice wedding?
>>
>>I'm not defending Hillary. I'm saying Trump is a dirtbag.
>

>One but not the other. Not surprised.
>
>Pretty much you are saying you are one of the vast majority of voters
>who thought both candidates were the bottom of the pile and picked
>what they thought was the least evil.

I really don't think either one of them is "evil." Richard Nixon was
an evil man by nature. Hillary is just too self-serving in her
personal life, although she has been unfairly brutalized by the right.
The EIGHT investigations into Bengazi were a good example. So is
Whitewater. Try as they might, prosecutors couldn't find anything
illegal in any of those "gates." As Tom Clancy said about his hero
Ryan, he was just "a little too sharp." <g>

Trump isn't evil. Trump is nuts.

Hillary would have made a better President but the right would have
blocked her at every turn. I doubt if she would have accomplished
much.

In Trump's case, I hope like hell he *doesn't* accomplish much. That
man could wreck the country if there weren't checks and balances.

>
>When I get to be dictator, voters can choose "none of the above" and
>the parties will have to come up with new candidates and start over.

--
Ed Huntress
>

[Shelter From the Storm]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 17:26:29 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 12:59:25 -0700, Shelter From the Storm wrote:
>
>>You are full of shit. And tribally pig-headed, as usual. You may as
>>well just copy and paste Wieber's "point set match."
>

>I like your new socks Jonathan. The stripe makes it sort of sporty.

Wrong again. Which is not exactly the way to go when someone says
you're full of shit. All you had to do was compare headers. But then,
you seem to have some sort of allergy to fact and proof. Which makes
you the last guy who should be trying to debate Huntress.

>You are also liberal. I can tell by your display of bad language,
>personal insult, and nothing else.

That habit of framing everything in terms of right vs left is the
perfect way to prove what I just said about your pig headedness.

>Opinion without substance; you sure have it all.

You're talking about yourself, and fooling no one.

IIRC, both Huntress and Canoza claimed that you weren't as dumb as
Wieber. I take it you didn't want to agree with them.

[Scout]

"Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message

news:oby3B.127521$wG1....@fx37.iad...

Because, you say so?

I will simply note that you note only ignored by request that you tell us
how you know this, but even the fact that I asked you that question.

Tell me, what am I thinking right now?

[Scout]

"Fred Wingo" <wieber.sucks@cocks> wrote in message

news:3cy3B.127522$wG1.1...@fx37.iad...

Let's see....using her position in the government to line her own pockets??

Scared that someone might see what's going through her emails, so she
ignores the Records Act and instead uses an unsecured server to receive,
send, and store classified information. Which information was stolen by at
least 5 different foreign intelligence services. Thus causing the release of
highly classified information and damaging our national security.

Then lied under oath about it, got others to lie about it, started a
cover-up, used her political connections to obstruct justice, destroyed
evidence, improperly disposed of classified materials, etc, etc, etc.

Are you aware that among her emails were those which including the
movements, security, and other details of Christopher Stevens in the days
before his murder?

Is the reason they were able to murder him because Hillary couldn't afford
to risk having her dealings become a matter of government record, and that
they were able to get that information off her server?

Sorry, I don't see how Donald Trump is worse than that. Indeed, as far as
I'm aware he's never been shown to have committed any felony, leaked any
classified information, and otherwise chose any of the multitude of illegal,
immoral and unethical actions which it has been shown Hillary engaged in.

[PaxPerPoten]

Up pops Cunt-In-A-Dresses Sock puppet. Idiot dreams up crap to argue
about. Kind of like the nonexistance of the Sharps 70-90 that are in
several Museums and hundreds in private hands. Or the one year run of
the Weatherby .475 magnum. Winston..Why are you wasting bandwidth on
this proven Moron?
>


--
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