http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire speech is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speechis
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire speech
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is norhing like Muldood.
dot nz> wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire speech >>is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, justLike what?
to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could
also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury
past, for the sake of balance.
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favourYes some are but not all.
of the Democrat Party.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I justSounds like a hater of the US political left (which is not at all very left wing) rather than the Democratic party.
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have
been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Bill.
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is >norhing like Muldood.
dot nz> wrote:
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire speech >>>ishttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just
to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could
also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury
past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favourYes some are but not all.
of the Democrat Party.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have
been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netDouble standards are the bread and butter of politicians and people like Trump, besides which being friends with someone and condoning their actions are separate issues.
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is >>norhing like Muldood.
dot nz> wrote:
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
Tasteless perhaps but she was doing a job which includes getting guilty people off - that is what defence lawyers do the world over. And Trump conyinues to gloat about the obvious hatred he has for women.THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just
to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could
also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him
sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated
that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paidJust like Trump
Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to
facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman when
compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
I don't rely on the media for information unlike some - including you I suspect!They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favourYes some are but not all.
of the Democrat Party.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism
and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only
noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced
towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has
now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for
Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a selectYeah right!
committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only
that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and
corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of
state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
The Clintons and Obama's are not cultural marxists, they are disticly right of centre and only a pathological hatred of left leaning politics could possibly fail to understand that!I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have
been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they
operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I
get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the
lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his
policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is
entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
I don't parrot anybody just use my own judgement unlike you!(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:Oh by the way I am absolutely not a supportere of left wing politics nor of any other flavour - both extreme views are anathema to me.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netDouble standards are the bread and butter of politicians and people like >Trump,
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is >>>norhing like Muldood.
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
besides which being friends with someone and condoning their actions are >separate issues.
Tasteless perhaps but she was doing a job which includes getting guilty people >off - that is what defence lawyers do the world over. And Trump conyinues to >gloat about the obvious hatred he has for women.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him
sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated
that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Just like Trump
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid
Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to
facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman whenNonsense. Your hatred of the so-called left is colouring your judgement.
compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.I don't rely on the media for information unlike some - including you I >suspect!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism
and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only
noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has
now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>Clinton.
Yeah right!
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only
that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of
state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
The Clintons and Obama's are not cultural marxists, they are disticly right of >centre and only a pathological hatred of left leaning politics could possibly >fail to understand that!
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I
get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the
lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is
entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
I don't parrot anybody just use my own judgement unlike you!
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:Oh by the way I am absolutely not a supportere of left wing politics nor of any
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netDouble standards are the bread and butter of politicians and people like >>Trump,
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is >>>>norhing like Muldood.
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and >>>cowardly Ted Kennedy.
besides which being friends with someone and condoning their actions are >>separate issues.
Tasteless perhaps but she was doing a job which includes getting guilty people
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
off - that is what defence lawyers do the world over. And Trump conyinues to >>gloat about the obvious hatred he has for women.
Just like Trump
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid >>>Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to >>>facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman whenNonsense. Your hatred of the so-called left is colouring your judgement. >>>See the liar squirm.
compared with either of the Clintons.
I don't rely on the media for information unlike some - including you I >>suspect!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only >>>noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>>Clinton.
Yeah right!
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>>committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>>corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of >>>state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
The Clintons and Obama's are not cultural marxists, they are disticly right of
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>>operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>>promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I
get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the >>>lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>>policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is >>>entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
centre and only a pathological hatred of left leaning politics could possibly
fail to understand that!
I don't parrot anybody just use my own judgement unlike you!
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
other flavour - both extreme views are anathema to me.
Tony
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:01:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netCompletely wrong on every count - I have no political affiliations, zero, none, nil - do you understand now?
dot nz> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:Oh by the way I am absolutely not a supportere of left wing politics nor of >>any
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:Double standards are the bread and butter of politicians and people like >>>Trump,
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is >>>>>norhing like Muldood.
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well >>>>known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and >>>>cowardly Ted Kennedy.
besides which being friends with someone and condoning their actions are >>>separate issues.
Tasteless perhaps but she was doing a job which includes getting guilty >>>people
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of >>>>the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>>sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>>that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as >>>>part of his defence.
off - that is what defence lawyers do the world over. And Trump conyinues to >>>gloat about the obvious hatred he has for women.
Just like Trump
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid >>>>Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to >>>>facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>>Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman whenNonsense. Your hatred of the so-called left is colouring your judgement. >>>>See the liar squirm.
compared with either of the Clintons.
I don't rely on the media for information unlike some - including you I >>>suspect!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>>and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only >>>>noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>>towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>>now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>>>Clinton.
Yeah right!
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>>>committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly >>>>across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>>that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>>>corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of >>>>state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
The Clintons and Obama's are not cultural marxists, they are disticly right >>>of
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>>>operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>>>promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I >>>>get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>>criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the >>>>lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>>>policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>>potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is >>>>entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever >>>>was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
centre and only a pathological hatred of left leaning politics could >>>possibly
fail to understand that!
I don't parrot anybody just use my own judgement unlike you!
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party. >>>>If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
other flavour - both extreme views are anathema to me.
Tony
Whch makes you probably a classic centrist :— >https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2014
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First
/ Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and
Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:01:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netnil - do you understand now?
dot nz> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:Oh by the way I am absolutely not a supportere of left wing politics nor of >>>any
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:Double standards are the bread and butter of politicians and people like >>>>Trump,
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is >>>>>>norhing like Muldood.
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>>>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage >>>>>over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well >>>>>known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and >>>>>cowardly Ted Kennedy.
besides which being friends with someone and condoning their actions are >>>>separate issues.
Tasteless perhaps but she was doing a job which includes getting guilty >>>>people
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of >>>>>the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>>>sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>>>that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the >>>>>polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as >>>>>part of his defence.
off - that is what defence lawyers do the world over. And Trump conyinues to
gloat about the obvious hatred he has for women.
Just like Trump
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid >>>>>Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to >>>>>facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>>>Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman whenNonsense. Your hatred of the so-called left is colouring your judgement. >>>>>See the liar squirm.
compared with either of the Clintons.
I don't rely on the media for information unlike some - including you I >>>>suspect!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>>>and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only >>>>>noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for >>>>>conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>>>towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>>>now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>>>>Clinton.
Yeah right!
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>>>>committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's, >>>>>some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly >>>>>across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>>>that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>>>>corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of >>>>>state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
The Clintons and Obama's are not cultural marxists, they are disticly right >>>>of
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>>>>operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>>>>promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I >>>>>get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>>>criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the >>>>>lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not >>>>>a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>>>>policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>>>potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is >>>>>entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever >>>>>was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
centre and only a pathological hatred of left leaning politics could >>>>possibly
fail to understand that!
I don't parrot anybody just use my own judgement unlike you!
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party. >>>>>If you believe that then you have not been paying attention, >>>>>preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media >>>>>which you are currently parroting.
other flavour - both extreme views are anathema to me.
Tony
Whch makes you probably a classic centrist :— >>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2014
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First
/ Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and
Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you. >Completely wrong on every count - I have no political affiliations, zero, none,
Tony
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:20:24 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThat is bullshit and not worth the time it took you to scribble it.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:01:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netnil - do you understand now?
dot nz> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:Oh by the way I am absolutely not a supportere of left wing politics nor of >>>>any
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:Double standards are the bread and butter of politicians and people like >>>>>Trump,
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he >>>>>>>is
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>>>>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
norhing like Muldood.
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage >>>>>>over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well >>>>>>known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and >>>>>>cowardly Ted Kennedy.
besides which being friends with someone and condoning their actions are >>>>>separate issues.
Tasteless perhaps but she was doing a job which includes getting guilty >>>>>people
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of >>>>>>the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>>>>sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>>>>that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the >>>>>>polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as >>>>>>part of his defence.
off - that is what defence lawyers do the world over. And Trump conyinues >>>>>to
gloat about the obvious hatred he has for women.
Just like Trump
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid >>>>>>Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to >>>>>>facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>>>>Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman whenNonsense. Your hatred of the so-called left is colouring your judgement. >>>>>>See the liar squirm.
compared with either of the Clintons.
I don't rely on the media for information unlike some - including you I >>>>>suspect!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>>>>and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only >>>>>>noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for >>>>>>conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>>>>towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>>>>now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>>>>>Clinton.
Yeah right!
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>>>>>committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's, >>>>>>some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly >>>>>>across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>>>>that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>>>>>corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of >>>>>>state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
The Clintons and Obama's are not cultural marxists, they are disticly >>>>>right
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>>>>>operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>>>>>promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I >>>>>>get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>>>>criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the >>>>>>lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not >>>>>>a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>>>>>policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>>>>potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is >>>>>>entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever >>>>>>was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
of
centre and only a pathological hatred of left leaning politics could >>>>>possibly
fail to understand that!
I don't parrot anybody just use my own judgement unlike you!
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party. >>>>>>If you believe that then you have not been paying attention, >>>>>>preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media >>>>>>which you are currently parroting.
other flavour - both extreme views are anathema to me.
Tony
Whch makes you probably a classic centrist :— >>>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2014
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First
/ Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and
Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you. >>Completely wrong on every count - I have no political affiliations, zero, >>none,
Tony
If you read what I said I did not say or imply that you did have any
party policitcal affiliation. The majority of people in Nw Zealand do
not have a party olitical affiliation, and indeed most will agree with
some policies of most parties at different times, but that in no way
makes them affiliated or even a supporter. You were able to express a >preference for Clinton over Trump, but that does not mean you have an >affiliation fro the Democrats, or that you may not at other times
prefer a republican candidate. But many people do have some attitudes
towards political issues that tend to run along consistent lines - you
have said that you reject the extremes, which as far as parties in NZ
would indicate the Mana party and ACT, although individuals within
parties or outside any party may well have views that are considerable
more extreme. All I am saying is that a person that generally finds >themselves taking a centrist view is probably closer to Labour than
National. but on a different axis possibly close to NZ First or the
Green party - with Labour neing marginally right of centre, NZ First
slightly left, and Maori closest to the centre.
So no you do not have to have a political affiliation, and II do not have affiliations, preferences or any political views of any kind so now do you undertsand.
understand and accept that you do not, but that does not mean that you
cannot have preferences in relation to policies and underlying
principles followed by different parties, and by avoiding the extremes
you may feel more comfortable with policies close to the centre on a >political spectrum.
Understand now?
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:20:24 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThat is bullshit and not worth the time it took you to scribble it.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:01:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:nil - do you understand now?
Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:Oh by the way I am absolutely not a supportere of left wing politics nor of
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:Double standards are the bread and butter of politicians and people like >>>>>>Trump,
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he >>>>>>>>is
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>>>>>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
norhing like Muldood.
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage >>>>>>>over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well >>>>>>>known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and >>>>>>>cowardly Ted Kennedy.
besides which being friends with someone and condoning their actions are >>>>>>separate issues.
Tasteless perhaps but she was doing a job which includes getting guilty >>>>>>people
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of >>>>>>>the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>>>>>sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>>>>>that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the >>>>>>>polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as >>>>>>>part of his defence.
off - that is what defence lawyers do the world over. And Trump conyinues >>>>>>to
gloat about the obvious hatred he has for women.
Just like Trump
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid >>>>>>>Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to >>>>>>>facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>>>>>Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman whenNonsense. Your hatred of the so-called left is colouring your judgement. >>>>>>>See the liar squirm.
compared with either of the Clintons.
I don't rely on the media for information unlike some - including you I >>>>>>suspect!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>>>>>and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only >>>>>>>noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for >>>>>>>conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>>>>>towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>>>>>now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>>>>>>Clinton.
Yeah right!
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>>>>>>committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's, >>>>>>>some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly >>>>>>>across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>>>>>that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>>>>>>corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of >>>>>>>state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
The Clintons and Obama's are not cultural marxists, they are disticly >>>>>>right
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>>>>>>operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>>>>>>promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I >>>>>>>get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>>>>>criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the >>>>>>>lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not >>>>>>>a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>>>>>>policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>>>>>potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is >>>>>>>entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever >>>>>>>was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
of
centre and only a pathological hatred of left leaning politics could >>>>>>possibly
fail to understand that!
I don't parrot anybody just use my own judgement unlike you!
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party. >>>>>>>If you believe that then you have not been paying attention, >>>>>>>preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media >>>>>>>which you are currently parroting.
any
other flavour - both extreme views are anathema to me.
Tony
Whch makes you probably a classic centrist :— >>>>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2014
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First >>>>/ Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and
Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you. >>>Completely wrong on every count - I have no political affiliations, zero, >>>none,
Tony
If you read what I said I did not say or imply that you did have any
party policitcal affiliation. The majority of people in Nw Zealand do
not have a party olitical affiliation, and indeed most will agree with
some policies of most parties at different times, but that in no way
makes them affiliated or even a supporter. You were able to express a >>preference for Clinton over Trump, but that does not mean you have an >>affiliation fro the Democrats, or that you may not at other times
prefer a republican candidate. But many people do have some attitudes >>towards political issues that tend to run along consistent lines - you
have said that you reject the extremes, which as far as parties in NZ
would indicate the Mana party and ACT, although individuals within
parties or outside any party may well have views that are considerable
more extreme. All I am saying is that a person that generally finds >>themselves taking a centrist view is probably closer to Labour than >>National. but on a different axis possibly close to NZ First or the
Green party - with Labour neing marginally right of centre, NZ First >>slightly left, and Maori closest to the centre.
I do not have affiliations, preferences or any political views of any kind so >now do you undertsand.
So no you do not have to have a political affiliation, and I
understand and accept that you do not, but that does not mean that you >>cannot have preferences in relation to policies and underlying
principles followed by different parties, and by avoiding the extremes
you may feel more comfortable with policies close to the centre on a >>political spectrum.
Understand now?
Tony
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:24:37 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou couldn't be more wrong - watch my lips - I have no poliitical pereferences - my preference for Clinton over Trump is absolutely not (repeat not!) political but you will never, ever, understand that because you are locked into dogma and stupid beliefs.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:20:24 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThat is bullshit and not worth the time it took you to scribble it.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:01:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:nil - do you understand now?
Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:Oh by the way I am absolutely not a supportere of left wing politics nor >>>>>>of
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:Double standards are the bread and butter of politicians and people like >>>>>>>Trump,
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he >>>>>>>>>is
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the >>>>>>>>>>>entirehttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
norhing like Muldood.
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage >>>>>>>>over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well >>>>>>>>known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and >>>>>>>>cowardly Ted Kennedy.
besides which being friends with someone and condoning their actions are >>>>>>>separate issues.
Tasteless perhaps but she was doing a job which includes getting guilty >>>>>>>people
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>>>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>>>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>>>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of >>>>>>>>the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>>>>>>sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>>>>>>that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the >>>>>>>>polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as >>>>>>>>part of his defence.
off - that is what defence lawyers do the world over. And Trump >>>>>>>conyinues
to
gloat about the obvious hatred he has for women.
Just like Trump
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid >>>>>>>>Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to >>>>>>>>facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>>>>>>Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman whenNonsense. Your hatred of the so-called left is colouring your judgement. >>>>>>>>See the liar squirm.
compared with either of the Clintons.
I don't rely on the media for information unlike some - including you I >>>>>>>suspect!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>>>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>>>>>>and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only >>>>>>>>noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for >>>>>>>>conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>>>>>>towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>>>>>>now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>>>>>>>Clinton.
Yeah right!
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>>>>>>>committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's, >>>>>>>>some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly >>>>>>>>across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>>>>>>that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>>>>>>>corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of >>>>>>>>state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
The Clintons and Obama's are not cultural marxists, they are disticly >>>>>>>right
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>>>>>>>operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>>>>>>>promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I >>>>>>>>get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>>>>>>criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the >>>>>>>>lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not >>>>>>>>a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>>>>>>>policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>>>>>>potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is >>>>>>>>entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever >>>>>>>>was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
of
centre and only a pathological hatred of left leaning politics could >>>>>>>possibly
fail to understand that!
I don't parrot anybody just use my own judgement unlike you!
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention, >>>>>>>>preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media >>>>>>>>which you are currently parroting.
any
other flavour - both extreme views are anathema to me.
Tony
Whch makes you probably a classic centrist :— >>>>>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2014
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First >>>>>/ Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and >>>>>Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you. >>>>Completely wrong on every count - I have no political affiliations, zero, >>>>none,
Tony
If you read what I said I did not say or imply that you did have any >>>party policitcal affiliation. The majority of people in Nw Zealand do
not have a party olitical affiliation, and indeed most will agree with >>>some policies of most parties at different times, but that in no way >>>makes them affiliated or even a supporter. You were able to express a >>>preference for Clinton over Trump, but that does not mean you have an >>>affiliation fro the Democrats, or that you may not at other times
prefer a republican candidate. But many people do have some attitudes >>>towards political issues that tend to run along consistent lines - you >>>have said that you reject the extremes, which as far as parties in NZ >>>would indicate the Mana party and ACT, although individuals within >>>parties or outside any party may well have views that are considerable >>>more extreme. All I am saying is that a person that generally finds >>>themselves taking a centrist view is probably closer to Labour than >>>National. but on a different axis possibly close to NZ First or the
Green party - with Labour neing marginally right of centre, NZ First >>>slightly left, and Maori closest to the centre.
I do not have affiliations, preferences or any political views of any kind so >>now do you undertsand.
So no you do not have to have a political affiliation, and I
understand and accept that you do not, but that does not mean that you >>>cannot have preferences in relation to policies and underlying
principles followed by different parties, and by avoiding the extremes >>>you may feel more comfortable with policies close to the centre on a >>>political spectrum.
Understand now?
Tony
Now you are being silly. Of course you have political preferences -
you expressed a preference for Clinton over Trump for example on well >reasoned political grounds.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is >>norhing like Muldood.
dot nz> wrote:
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just
to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could
also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him
sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated
that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid
Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to
facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order. Trump is a gentleman when >compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
You may see something of interest here http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85724960/archive-news-video-appears-to-show-trump-praising-the-clintons-as-fine-peopleThey won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favourYes some are but not all.
of the Democrat Party.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism
and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only
noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced
towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has
now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for
Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select
committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only
that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and
corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of
state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have
been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they
operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I
get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the
lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his
policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is
entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:24:37 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netof
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:20:24 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:01:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> dot nz> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:Oh by the way I am absolutely not a supportere of left wing politics nor
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>> dot nz> wrote:Double standards are the bread and butter of politicians and people like
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he
dot nz> wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire
speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
is
norhing like Muldood.
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage >>>>>>>> over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well >>>>>>>> known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and >>>>>>>> cowardly Ted Kennedy.
Trump,
besides which being friends with someone and condoning their actions are
separate issues.
Tasteless perhaps but she was doing a job which includes getting guilty >>>>>>> people
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just
to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>>>>>> also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury
past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of >>>>>>>> the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>>>>>> sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>>>>>> that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as >>>>>>>> part of his defence.
off - that is what defence lawyers do the world over. And Trump conyinues
to
gloat about the obvious hatred he has for women.
Just like Trump
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid >>>>>>>> Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to >>>>>>>> facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>>>>>> Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman whenNonsense. Your hatred of the so-called left is colouring your judgement.
compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.I don't rely on the media for information unlike some - including you I >>>>>>> suspect!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favourYes some are but not all.
of the Democrat Party.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>>>>>> and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only >>>>>>>> noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>>>>>> towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>>>>>> now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>>>>>>> Clinton.
Yeah right!
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>>>>>>> committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's, >>>>>>>> some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly >>>>>>>> across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>>>>>> that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>>>>>>> corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of >>>>>>>> state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
The Clintons and Obama's are not cultural marxists, they are disticly >>>>>>> right
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>>>>> been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>>>>>>> operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>>>>>>> promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I >>>>>>>> get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>>>>>> criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the >>>>>>>> lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not >>>>>>>> a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>>>>>>> policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>>>>>> potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is >>>>>>>> entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever >>>>>>>> was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
of
centre and only a pathological hatred of left leaning politics could >>>>>>> possibly
fail to understand that!
I don't parrot anybody just use my own judgement unlike you!
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media >>>>>>>> which you are currently parroting.
That is bullshit and not worth the time it took you to scribble it.Completely wrong on every count - I have no political affiliations, zero, >>>> none,any
other flavour - both extreme views are anathema to me.
Tony
Whch makes you probably a classic centrist :—
https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2014
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First >>>>> / Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and
Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you.
nil - do you understand now?
Tony
If you read what I said I did not say or imply that you did have any
party policitcal affiliation. The majority of people in Nw Zealand do
not have a party olitical affiliation, and indeed most will agree with
some policies of most parties at different times, but that in no way
makes them affiliated or even a supporter. You were able to express a
preference for Clinton over Trump, but that does not mean you have an
affiliation fro the Democrats, or that you may not at other times
prefer a republican candidate. But many people do have some attitudes
towards political issues that tend to run along consistent lines - you
have said that you reject the extremes, which as far as parties in NZ
would indicate the Mana party and ACT, although individuals within
parties or outside any party may well have views that are considerable
more extreme. All I am saying is that a person that generally finds
themselves taking a centrist view is probably closer to Labour than
National. but on a different axis possibly close to NZ First or the
Green party - with Labour neing marginally right of centre, NZ First
slightly left, and Maori closest to the centre.
I do not have affiliations, preferences or any political views of any kind so
So no you do not have to have a political affiliation, and I
understand and accept that you do not, but that does not mean that you
cannot have preferences in relation to policies and underlying
principles followed by different parties, and by avoiding the extremes
you may feel more comfortable with policies close to the centre on a
political spectrum.
Understand now?
now do you undertsand.
Tony
Now you are being silly. Of course you have political preferences -
you expressed a preference for Clinton over Trump for example on well reasoned political grounds.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he
dot nz> wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/ enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech >>>>Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>speech is poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
is norhing like Muldood.
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well known
that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just
to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could
also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him
sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated
that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the polygraph
test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid
Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to
facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order. Trump is a gentleman when compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favourYes some are but not all.
of the Democrat Party.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism
and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only
noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for conservatism.
If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has now become the
Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select
committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's, some
of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and corruption over the
the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of state under the
espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have
been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they
operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and
criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the
lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his
policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is
entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention, preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:34:01 +1300, BR wrote:I don't agree wholehartedly with that but I certainly don't want an out-of-control crazy in The White House. And Clinton for all of her faults has experience. I don't give a fat rat's bum who her friends were or are - that is completely irrelevant.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/ >enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech >>>>>Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>>speech is poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
is norhing like Muldood.
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage over
something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well known
that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and cowardly Ted
Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him
sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated
that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the polygraph
test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as part of his
defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid
Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to
facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill
Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order. Trump is a gentleman when
compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism
and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only
noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for conservatism.
If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced towards Ted Cruz
during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has now become the
Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select
committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's, some
of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly across the
mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only that, but the
mainstream media would have been screaming bias and corruption over the
the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of state under the
espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they
operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false
promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I get
that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and
criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the
lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not a
cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his
policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some
potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is
entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention, preferring
instead to glean information from the mainstream media which you are
currently parroting.
Bill.
Aw, c'mon. All politicians lie, at least in having to choose between
public positions and private positions. Politics is unavoidably about >marrying together opinions that differ and, not infrequently, are
downright incompatible. So of course they fib - they have to by
definition. And that's also why Rich's continued appeal to "reasoned >argument" is at least unrealistic, and probably irrelevant.
So, going back to the US Presidential elections, one American commentator
got it exactly right when he observed that "dishonest trumps crazy any
time". Also, to the extent that dishonesty is predictable and craziness >isn't, I know which of those hands I'd prefer to have hovering over the >nuclear trigger.
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:speech
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:34:01 +1300, BR wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/ >>enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-
I don't agree wholehartedly with that but I certainly don't want an out-of-control crazy in The White House. And Clinton for all of herSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he >>>>is norhing like Muldood.Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the >>>>>>entire speech is poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him
sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated
that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid
Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to
facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill
Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order. Trump is a gentleman when
compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism
and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only
noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced
towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has
now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for
Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select
committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only
that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and
corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of
state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they
operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false
promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I
get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and
criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the
lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his
policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some
potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is
entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic
party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
Aw, c'mon. All politicians lie, at least in having to choose between >>public positions and private positions. Politics is unavoidably about >>marrying together opinions that differ and, not infrequently, are
downright incompatible. So of course they fib - they have to by >>definition. And that's also why Rich's continued appeal to "reasoned >>argument" is at least unrealistic, and probably irrelevant.
So, going back to the US Presidential elections, one American
commentator got it exactly right when he observed that "dishonest trumps >>crazy any time". Also, to the extent that dishonesty is predictable and >>craziness isn't, I know which of those hands I'd prefer to have hovering >>over the nuclear trigger.
faults has experience. I don't give a fat rat's bum who her friends were
or are - that is completely irrelevant.
Tony
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:26:29 -0500, Tony wrote:
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:speech
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:34:01 +1300, BR wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/ >>>enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-
I don't agree wholehartedly with that but I certainly don't want anSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he >>>>>is norhing like Muldood.Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the >>>>>>>entire speech is poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him
sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>> that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid
Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to
facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>> Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order. Trump is a gentleman when
compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>> and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only
noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced
towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>> now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for
Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select
committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only
that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and
corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of
state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they
operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false
promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I
get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>> criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the
lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his
policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>> potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is
entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic >>>>>party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
Aw, c'mon. All politicians lie, at least in having to choose between >>>public positions and private positions. Politics is unavoidably about >>>marrying together opinions that differ and, not infrequently, are >>>downright incompatible. So of course they fib - they have to by >>>definition. And that's also why Rich's continued appeal to "reasoned >>>argument" is at least unrealistic, and probably irrelevant.
So, going back to the US Presidential elections, one American
commentator got it exactly right when he observed that "dishonest trumps >>>crazy any time". Also, to the extent that dishonesty is predictable and >>>craziness isn't, I know which of those hands I'd prefer to have hovering >>>over the nuclear trigger.
out-of-control crazy in The White House. And Clinton for all of her
faults has experience. I don't give a fat rat's bum who her friends were
or are - that is completely irrelevant.
Tony
Sure. We may laugh, or be mystified, or criticize, or not understand, or deplore (or all of these and more) that a nation of such power and such enlightenment in all manner of things can end up with the final choice
being no better than between dishonest or crazy. But that's what has happened. Making the choice is a responsibility that the American people must accept, with the reality that rest of us will have to make the best
of the result. So, that being so, and distasteful though it may be, I believe there's nothing more to say than that dishonest is to be
preferred over crazy.
HitAnyKey wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:26:29 -0500, Tony wrote:
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:speech
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:34:01 +1300, BR wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot >>>>>>>net dot nz> wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/ >>>>enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-
I don't agree wholehartedly with that but I certainly don't want anSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but >>>>>>he is norhing like Muldood.Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the >>>>>>>>entire speech is poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, >>>>>>>just to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they >>>>>>>could also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's >>>>>>>unsavoury past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted
of the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>>> sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly
stated that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the >>>>> polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and
paid Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in
preference to facing further questions under oath during his
impeachment trial. Bill Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman when compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in >>>>>>>favour of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for
leftism and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the
only noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>>> towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox
has now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting >>>>> for Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select
committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>>> that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and
corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary
of state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they
operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on
false promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a
buffoon, I get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon,
and a liar and criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason
than to keep the lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all
his faults, is not a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the
Obamas, and some of his policies (not all) make sense. He is also
new to politics and has some potential to learn and improve.
Clinton, on the other hand, is entrenched. She will never change.
She is as corrupt now as she ever was, and will be worse if she
makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic >>>>>>party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
Aw, c'mon. All politicians lie, at least in having to choose between >>>>public positions and private positions. Politics is unavoidably about >>>>marrying together opinions that differ and, not infrequently, are >>>>downright incompatible. So of course they fib - they have to by >>>>definition. And that's also why Rich's continued appeal to "reasoned >>>>argument" is at least unrealistic, and probably irrelevant.
So, going back to the US Presidential elections, one American >>>>commentator got it exactly right when he observed that "dishonest >>>>trumps crazy any time". Also, to the extent that dishonesty is >>>>predictable and craziness isn't, I know which of those hands I'd
prefer to have hovering over the nuclear trigger.
out-of-control crazy in The White House. And Clinton for all of her
faults has experience. I don't give a fat rat's bum who her friends
were or are - that is completely irrelevant.
Tony
Sure. We may laugh, or be mystified, or criticize, or not understand,
or deplore (or all of these and more) that a nation of such power and
such enlightenment in all manner of things can end up with the final
choice being no better than between dishonest or crazy. But that's
what has happened. Making the choice is a responsibility that the
American people must accept, with the reality that rest of us will have
to make the best of the result. So, that being so, and distasteful
though it may be, I believe there's nothing more to say than that
dishonest is to be preferred over crazy.
In that nearly all presidents have professed a belief in magic and superstitious nonsense, I'd say crazy is par for the course.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:26:29 -0500, Tony wrote:I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe who people have been friendly with is of no matter.
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:speech
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:34:01 +1300, BR wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/ >>>enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-
I don't agree wholehartedly with that but I certainly don't want anSo what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he >>>>>is norhing like Muldood.Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the >>>>>>>entire speech is poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him
sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>> that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid
Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to
facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>> Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order. Trump is a gentleman when
compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>> and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only
noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced
towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>> now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for
Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select
committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only
that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and
corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of
state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they
operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false
promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I
get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>> criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the
lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his
policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>> potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is
entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic >>>>>party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
Aw, c'mon. All politicians lie, at least in having to choose between >>>public positions and private positions. Politics is unavoidably about >>>marrying together opinions that differ and, not infrequently, are >>>downright incompatible. So of course they fib - they have to by >>>definition. And that's also why Rich's continued appeal to "reasoned >>>argument" is at least unrealistic, and probably irrelevant.
So, going back to the US Presidential elections, one American
commentator got it exactly right when he observed that "dishonest trumps >>>crazy any time". Also, to the extent that dishonesty is predictable and >>>craziness isn't, I know which of those hands I'd prefer to have hovering >>>over the nuclear trigger.
out-of-control crazy in The White House. And Clinton for all of her
faults has experience. I don't give a fat rat's bum who her friends were
or are - that is completely irrelevant.
Tony
Sure. We may laugh, or be mystified, or criticize, or not understand, or >deplore (or all of these and more) that a nation of such power and such >enlightenment in all manner of things can end up with the final choice
being no better than between dishonest or crazy. But that's what has >happened. Making the choice is a responsibility that the American people >must accept, with the reality that rest of us will have to make the best
of the result. So, that being so, and distasteful though it may be, I >believe there's nothing more to say than that dishonest is to be
preferred over crazy.
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:26:29 -0500, Tony wrote:I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:34:01 +1300, BR wrote:I don't agree wholehartedly with that but I certainly don't want an
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot >>>>>>>net dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but >>>>>>he is norhing like Muldood.
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the >>>>>>>>entire speech is poignant and rtight on the button!http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/ >>>>enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful- >>speech
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, >>>>>>>just to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they >>>>>>>could also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's >>>>>>>unsavoury past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted
of the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>>> sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly
stated that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the >>>>> polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and
paid Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in
preference to facing further questions under oath during his
impeachment trial. Bill Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order.
Trump is a gentleman when compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in >>>>>>>favour of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for
leftism and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the
only noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>>> towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox
has now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting >>>>> for Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select
committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>>> that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and
corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary
of state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they
operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on
false promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a
buffoon, I get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon,
and a liar and criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason
than to keep the lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all
his faults, is not a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the
Obamas, and some of his policies (not all) make sense. He is also
new to politics and has some potential to learn and improve.
Clinton, on the other hand, is entrenched. She will never change.
She is as corrupt now as she ever was, and will be worse if she
makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic >>>>>>party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
Aw, c'mon. All politicians lie, at least in having to choose between >>>>public positions and private positions. Politics is unavoidably about >>>>marrying together opinions that differ and, not infrequently, are >>>>downright incompatible. So of course they fib - they have to by >>>>definition. And that's also why Rich's continued appeal to "reasoned >>>>argument" is at least unrealistic, and probably irrelevant.
So, going back to the US Presidential elections, one American >>>>commentator got it exactly right when he observed that "dishonest >>>>trumps crazy any time". Also, to the extent that dishonesty is >>>>predictable and craziness isn't, I know which of those hands I'd
prefer to have hovering over the nuclear trigger.
out-of-control crazy in The White House. And Clinton for all of her
faults has experience. I don't give a fat rat's bum who her friends
were or are - that is completely irrelevant.
Tony
Sure. We may laugh, or be mystified, or criticize, or not understand,
or deplore (or all of these and more) that a nation of such power and
such enlightenment in all manner of things can end up with the final
choice being no better than between dishonest or crazy. But that's what >>has happened. Making the choice is a responsibility that the American >>people must accept, with the reality that rest of us will have to make
the best of the result. So, that being so, and distasteful though it
may be, I believe there's nothing more to say than that dishonest is to
be preferred over crazy.
who people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:13:50 -0500, Tony wrote:Especially in our environment where there is not much difference between the so-called left and right.
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:26:29 -0500, Tony wrote:I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:34:01 +1300, BR wrote:I don't agree wholehartedly with that but I certainly don't want an
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot >>>>>>>>net dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but >>>>>>>he is norhing like Muldood.
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the >>>>>>>>>entire speech is poignant and rtight on the button!http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/ >>>>>enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful- >>>speech
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage >>>>>> over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well >>>>>> known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, >>>>>>>>just to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they >>>>>>>>could also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's >>>>>>>>unsavoury past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted >>>>>> of the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>>>> sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly
stated that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the >>>>>> polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as >>>>>> part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and
paid Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in
preference to facing further questions under oath during his
impeachment trial. Bill Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order. >>>>>> Trump is a gentleman when compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in >>>>>>>>favour of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for
leftism and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the >>>>>> only noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>>>> towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox >>>>>> has now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting >>>>>> for Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>>>>> committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's, >>>>>> some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly >>>>>> across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>>>> that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and
corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary >>>>>> of state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>>>>> operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on
false promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a
buffoon, I get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, >>>>>> and a liar and criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason >>>>>> than to keep the lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all >>>>>> his faults, is not a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the
Obamas, and some of his policies (not all) make sense. He is also
new to politics and has some potential to learn and improve.
Clinton, on the other hand, is entrenched. She will never change.
She is as corrupt now as she ever was, and will be worse if she
makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic >>>>>>>party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
Aw, c'mon. All politicians lie, at least in having to choose between >>>>>public positions and private positions. Politics is unavoidably about >>>>>marrying together opinions that differ and, not infrequently, are >>>>>downright incompatible. So of course they fib - they have to by >>>>>definition. And that's also why Rich's continued appeal to "reasoned >>>>>argument" is at least unrealistic, and probably irrelevant.
So, going back to the US Presidential elections, one American >>>>>commentator got it exactly right when he observed that "dishonest >>>>>trumps crazy any time". Also, to the extent that dishonesty is >>>>>predictable and craziness isn't, I know which of those hands I'd >>>>>prefer to have hovering over the nuclear trigger.
out-of-control crazy in The White House. And Clinton for all of her
faults has experience. I don't give a fat rat's bum who her friends
were or are - that is completely irrelevant.
Tony
Sure. We may laugh, or be mystified, or criticize, or not understand,
or deplore (or all of these and more) that a nation of such power and >>>such enlightenment in all manner of things can end up with the final >>>choice being no better than between dishonest or crazy. But that's what >>>has happened. Making the choice is a responsibility that the American >>>people must accept, with the reality that rest of us will have to make >>>the best of the result. So, that being so, and distasteful though it
may be, I believe there's nothing more to say than that dishonest is to >>>be preferred over crazy.
who people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
Snap! It's got nothing to do with anything that matters.
Also, on a slightly different tack, I see little point and no use to man
or beast in trying to label individuals as "left" or "right", with or
without provocative adjectives. I suppose it serves as a diversion from
the disciplines of more sober analysis, but it's still wasted effort that >doesn't get us anywhere.
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou may see something of interest here >http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85724960/archive-news-video-appears-to-show-trump-praising-the-clintons-as-fine-people
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is >>>norhing like Muldood.
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and
cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him
sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated
that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid
Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to
facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order. Trump is a gentleman when >>compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism
and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only
noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has
now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only
that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of
state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I
get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the
lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is
entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
Talking of double stanhdards!
Tony
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generally
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to
see what they can pin on Trump.
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:22:01 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First
/ Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and
Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you.
So where does that put you?
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First
/ Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and
Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you.
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:22:01 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>As has been pointed out there is a lot of emphasis on the left/right
wrote:
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First
/ Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and
Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you.
So where does that put you?
Bill.
There is a difference between that, and being a friend and admirer of a sleaze and coward feigning outrage at some glib, locker room comment
made by Trump over a decade ago. Now, Hillary Clinton who is, according
to Obama, the most qualified person in history to be president, is known
to have joked about her defence of a man for the rape of a 12 year old, essentially saying that she knew in advance that he was guilty and that
she didn't believe the evidence she employed in his defence. Any person
of integrity would have felt somewhat tacky after doing a job like that
and would not have been so cock-a-hoop about it.
On 10/31/2016 5:33 AM, BR wrote:
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generallyAnd it seems that that tactic has backfired with the Billarys 'finding' >females who claimed Trump was naughty.
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to
see what they can pin on Trump.
The email scandal is, however, a very different and major problem.
If you can't trust the President with the security of the Nation don't
allow them anywhere near the White House
I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe who >people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 05:34:03 +1300, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:22:01 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>As has been pointed out there is a lot of emphasis on the left/right
wrote:
From what you say you are probably somewhere in the region of NZ First
/ Labour / Maori party, and find ACT / National too far right, and
Mana too far left. The Green party may be too libertarian for you.
So where does that put you?
Bill.
axis, and not much on the Authoritarian / Libertarian. I am fairly
centre on each. (+1, +1) It amuses me that so-called
"Libertarian"suporters tend to favour National / ACT who are nearly
the most authoritarian parties.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Try the test and tell us your result, BR.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 01:37:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netAs you should well know by now that has been incorrectly reported.
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:18:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou may see something of interest here >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85724960/archive-news-video-appears-to-show-trump-praising-the-clintons-as-fine-people
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:40:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:So what? I know someone who was friends with the Muldoon family but he is >>>>norhing like Muldood.
Please read the last sentence. I hope she is correct - but the entire >>>>>>speechhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85390759/enough-is-enough-michelle-obama-excoriates-donald-trump-in-powerful-speech
is
poignant and rtight on the button!
Tony
The Obamas are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Remember how pally they were with Ted Kennedy?
Which has exactly what to do with the Obama's?
Remeber Chappaquiddick?
It is double standards for Michelle Obama to display phony outrage
over something that Donald Trump said 11 years ago, when it is well
known that the Obamas were friends and admirers of the sleazy and >>>cowardly Ted Kennedy.
THe MSM should ask Ms Obama for a comment on that sordid affair, just >>>>>to put things in perspective. Not only that, but perhaps they could >>>>>also shed a little more light on some of Bill and Hillary's unsavoury >>>>>past, for the sake of balance.
Like what?
Hillary Clinton boasted about a man she defended who was convicted of
the rape of a 12 year old girl, and after plea bargaining saw him >>>sentenced to time served; a total of two months. She laughingly stated >>>that she knew he was guilty, and that she had no faith in the
polygraph test she had him take, but which she subsequently used as
part of his defence.
Bill Clinton lost his license to practise law for five years and paid >>>Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement in preference to >>>facing further questions under oath during his impeachment trial. Bill >>>Clinton is a sleaze of the most high order. Trump is a gentleman when >>>compared with either of the Clintons.
See the liar squirm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlmAQXCYSXk
They won't of course. The traditional media are very biased in favour >>>>>of the Democrat Party.Yes some are but not all.
By far the majority of the mainstream meda are mouthpieces for leftism >>>and the politicians who define it. Fox would likely be the only >>>noteworthy exception, not that Fox is any flag bearer for
conservatism. If they were, they would have been a lot more balanced >>>towards Ted Cruz during the run for the Republican nomination. Fox has >>>now become the Trump channel, with the rest of the media batting for >>>Clinton.
If any Republican secratary of state were the subject of a select >>>committee hearing, and had put on a performance like Ms Clinton's,
some of the the proceedings would have been megaphoned incessantly
across the mainstream media all the way up to the election. Not only >>>that, but the mainstream media would have been screaming bias and >>>corruption over the the failure of the FBI to charge the secratary of >>>state under the espionage act under similar circumstances.
I don't hope so much that Trump wins, I just
want Clinton to lose. She is as corrupt as it gets, and should have >>>>>been indicted by the FBI under the espionage act.
Sounds like a hater of the US political left
I have nothing but contempt for the left irrespective of where they >>>operate. I make no apology for that. Leftist agenda is based on false >>>promises, outright lies, theft and corruption. Trump is a buffoon, I
get that. However, if given a choice between a buffoon, and a liar and >>>criminal, I'll take the buffoon for no other reason than to keep the >>>lying crook out of the Oval Office. Trump, for all his faults, is not
a cultural Marxist like the Clintons and the Obamas, and some of his >>>policies (not all) make sense. He is also new to politics and has some >>>potential to learn and improve. Clinton, on the other hand, is >>>entrenched. She will never change. She is as corrupt now as she ever
was, and will be worse if she makes it to the White House.
(which is not at all very left >wing) rather than the Democratic party.
If you believe that then you have not been paying attention,
preferring instead to glean information from the mainstream media
which you are currently parroting.
Bill.
Talking of double stanhdards!
Tony
People sometimes start to take notice of things they had previously
been ignoring and change their minds as a result. Everyone has done
that at some time. I don't have too much of a problem with that.
There is a difference between that, and being a friend and admirer of
a sleaze and coward feigning outrage at some glib, locker room comment
made by Trump over a decade ago. Now, Hillary Clinton who is,
according to Obama, the most qualified person in history to be
president, is known to have joked about her defence of a man for the
rape of a 12 year old, essentially saying that she knew in advance
that he was guilty and that she didn't believe the evidence she
employed in his defence. Any person of integrity would have felt
somewhat tacky after doing a job like that and would not have been so >cock-a-hoop about it.
I am not defending Trump in any way for his comments. I merely point
out the hypocrisy of Michelle Obama, Clinton, and the lengths to which
the partisan media will go, and the depths of trash into which they
will burrow into in order to get their candidate elected.
So if a less than exemplary past was enough to disqualify someone from
being president, then neither Trump nor Clinton would be eligible.
What about Clinton's open borders policy, her contempt for the rule of
law and the constitution, her job killing tax policy and the intent to >further expand the federal bureaucracy and the debt?
Does any of that matter?
Bill.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:13:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
I did nothing of the sort. I started the thread by pointing out what I believed to be a poignant and accurate address by Michelle Obama.I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe who >>people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
You started the thread about Trump's locker room comments. Why does
that matter, but the Clintons' grubby past not matter?
Leaving all that aside, Hillary Clinton is for open borders, highTrump is also guilty of lying, as are many politicians and political hopefuls worldwide.
taxes, more regulations, big government, and is generally in favour of >turning the United States into another Europe. Trump, not so much.
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generally
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to
see what they can pin on Trump.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 05:32:10 +1300, BR wrote:
<snip>
There is a difference between that, and being a friend and admirer of a
sleaze and coward feigning outrage at some glib, locker room comment
made by Trump over a decade ago. Now, Hillary Clinton who is, according
to Obama, the most qualified person in history to be president, is known
to have joked about her defence of a man for the rape of a 12 year old,
essentially saying that she knew in advance that he was guilty and that
she didn't believe the evidence she employed in his defence. Any person
of integrity would have felt somewhat tacky after doing a job like that
and would not have been so cock-a-hoop about it.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/Exactly!
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:13:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
believedI believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe who >>people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
You started the thread about Trump's locker room comments. Why doesI did nothing of the sort. I started the thread by pointing out what I
that matter, but the Clintons' grubby past not matter?
to be a poignant and accurate address by Michelle Obama.a
The past of both matters and I have said nothing to contradict that.
Leaving all that aside, Hillary Clinton is for open borders, high
taxes, more regulations, big government, and is generally in favour of >turning the United States into another Europe. Trump, not so much.
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generallyTrump is also guilty of lying, as are many politicians and political hopefuls worldwide.
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to
see what they can pin on Trump.
And I do not believe the mainstream media are working agaoinst Trump, that is
bow too far.obvious.
His relationship with Russia is ignored by those that are blind to the
No, I don't give a damn about why he has the relationship but he has liedwhen
he says he has no relationship - in the eyes of some Americans that is tantamount to treason - if he became President it would be an impeachment issue. He is simply too dangerous to be put in the job.
And I do not support Clinton either, I am more opposed to Trump than I am to her - it really is that simple for me.
Tony
On Wednesday, 2 November 2016 11:03:09 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote: >> BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:I am concerned about what will happen whoever wins.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:13:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI did nothing of the sort. I started the thread by pointing out what I >>believed
dot nz> wrote:
I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe
who
people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
You started the thread about Trump's locker room comments. Why does
that matter, but the Clintons' grubby past not matter?
to be a poignant and accurate address by Michelle Obama.
The past of both matters and I have said nothing to contradict that.
Trump is also guilty of lying, as are many politicians and political >>hopefuls
Leaving all that aside, Hillary Clinton is for open borders, high
taxes, more regulations, big government, and is generally in favour of
turning the United States into another Europe. Trump, not so much.
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generally
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to
see what they can pin on Trump.
worldwide.
And I do not believe the mainstream media are working agaoinst Trump, that >>is a
bow too far.
His relationship with Russia is ignored by those that are blind to the >>obvious.
No, I don't give a damn about why he has the relationship but he has lied >>when
he says he has no relationship - in the eyes of some Americans that is
tantamount to treason - if he became President it would be an impeachment
issue. He is simply too dangerous to be put in the job.
And I do not support Clinton either, I am more opposed to Trump than I am to >> her - it really is that simple for me.
Tony
I think the best election outcome would be for Hillary to win, then get >impeached and tossed out, and then have a new election. Second time around I >would hope the Dems and GOP would have wised up a little.
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:13:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI did nothing of the sort. I started the thread by pointing out what I believed
dot nz> wrote:
I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe who >>>people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
You started the thread about Trump's locker room comments. Why does
that matter, but the Clintons' grubby past not matter?
to be a poignant and accurate address by Michelle Obama.
The past of both matters and I have said nothing to contradict that.
Leaving all that aside, Hillary Clinton is for open borders, high
taxes, more regulations, big government, and is generally in favour of >>turning the United States into another Europe. Trump, not so much.
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generally
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to
see what they can pin on Trump.
Trump is also guilty of lying, as are many politicians and political hopefuls >worldwide.
And I do not believe the mainstream media are working agaoinst Trump, that is a
bow too far.
His relationship with Russia is ignored by those that are blind to the obvious.
No, I don't give a damn about why he has the relationship but he has lied when >he says he has no relationship - in the eyes of some Americans that is >tantamount to treason - if he became President it would be an impeachment >issue.
He is simply too dangerous to be put in the job.
And I do not support Clinton either, I am more opposed to Trump than I am to >her - it really is that simple for me.
As you should well know by now that has been incorrectly reported.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:04:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
As you should well know by now that has been incorrectly reported.
Says who? I've heard her laughing and joking about it.
The best thing
she could have done was to shut up about it, as any person of
integrity would.
Bill.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:03:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netTrump of course - fits him like a glove.
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:13:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI did nothing of the sort. I started the thread by pointing out what I >>believed
dot nz> wrote:
I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe who >>>>people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
You started the thread about Trump's locker room comments. Why does
that matter, but the Clintons' grubby past not matter?
to be a poignant and accurate address by Michelle Obama.
The past of both matters and I have said nothing to contradict that.
So who is the pugnacious sexist elitist?
Maybe, just like Trump supportersLeaving all that aside, Hillary Clinton is for open borders, high
taxes, more regulations, big government, and is generally in favour of >>>turning the United States into another Europe. Trump, not so much.
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generally
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to
see what they can pin on Trump.
Trump is also guilty of lying, as are many politicians and political hopefuls >>worldwide.
Look, trump is not the ideal candidate and I am no special pleader for
Trump. He may be one to not let the truth get the better of him, but
Clinton is a compulsive liar. I've watched the congressional
subcommittee hearings. Putting Clinton in the Oval Office would be
like having Rich80105 as President of the United States. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/
And I do not believe the mainstream media are working agaoinst Trump, that is >>a
bow too far.
I disagree. If any Republican Secretary of State were found to be as
careless (or worse) with classified information as Clinton has been,
and admits to, the MSM would be repeating the story over and over
again all the way to November the 8th and howling for the FBI to
prosecute.
His relationship with Russia is ignored by those that are blind to the >>obvious.
What relationship with Russia? Even CNN isn't running that one. The
FBI has turned up nothing. Clinton supporters are fishing.
It is my opinion and I have no political interest of any sort at all.No, I don't give a damn about why he has the relationship but he has lied >>when
he says he has no relationship - in the eyes of some Americans that is >>tantamount to treason - if he became President it would be an impeachment >>issue.
Great. Let's hope Trump is impeached. That way Mike Pence becomes
president. Pence would be a far better candidate than either of the
current pick, or Tim Kaine or Gary Johnson.
He is simply too dangerous to be put in the job.
That same nonsense was trotted out by the liberals during both Ronald >Reagan's campaigns.
Clinton publicly burped up how much time it takes for a nuclear weaponPlease don't put words into my mouth, I can speak for myself.
to be launched after the order is given. No surprises there, given
Clinton's cavalier attitude to national security.
And I do not support Clinton either, I am more opposed to Trump than I am to >>her - it really is that simple for me.
Then you would prefer 1.3 trillion in new taxes to tax cuts.
You would prefer open borders to border control.
You would prefer government controlled education to freedom of choice.
You would prefer Obamacare over freedom to choose.
You would prefer a militarily weak America to a strong America.
You would prefer a president who intends to appoint activist judges to
one who favours originalists.
You would prefer the candidate who has the least respect for the >constitution.
You would prefer a candidate who consistently puts politics before
economics to one who has at least some sense of fiscal responsibility.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:04:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
As you should well know by now that has been incorrectly reported.
Says who? I've heard her laughing and joking about it. The best thing
she could have done was to shut up about it, as any person of
integrity would.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:03:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netHow about these bickies?
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:13:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI did nothing of the sort. I started the thread by pointing out what I >>believed
dot nz> wrote:
I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe who >>>>people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
You started the thread about Trump's locker room comments. Why does
that matter, but the Clintons' grubby past not matter?
to be a poignant and accurate address by Michelle Obama.
The past of both matters and I have said nothing to contradict that.
So who is the pugnacious sexist elitist?
Leaving all that aside, Hillary Clinton is for open borders, high
taxes, more regulations, big government, and is generally in favour of >>>turning the United States into another Europe. Trump, not so much.
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generally
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to
see what they can pin on Trump.
Trump is also guilty of lying, as are many politicians and political hopefuls >>worldwide.
Look, trump is not the ideal candidate and I am no special pleader for
Trump. He may be one to not let the truth get the better of him, but
Clinton is a compulsive liar. I've watched the congressional
subcommittee hearings. Putting Clinton in the Oval Office would be
like having Rich80105 as President of the United States.
And I do not believe the mainstream media are working agaoinst Trump, that is >>a
bow too far.
I disagree. If any Republican Secretary of State were found to be as
careless (or worse) with classified information as Clinton has been,
and admits to, the MSM would be repeating the story over and over
again all the way to November the 8th and howling for the FBI to
prosecute.
His relationship with Russia is ignored by those that are blind to the >>obvious.
What relationship with Russia? Even CNN isn't running that one. The
FBI has turned up nothing. Clinton supporters are fishing.
No, I don't give a damn about why he has the relationship but he has lied >>when
he says he has no relationship - in the eyes of some Americans that is >>tantamount to treason - if he became President it would be an impeachment >>issue.
Great. Let's hope Trump is impeached. That way Mike Pence becomes
president. Pence would be a far better candidate than either of the
current pick, or Tim Kaine or Gary Johnson.
He is simply too dangerous to be put in the job.
That same nonsense was trotted out by the liberals during both Ronald >Reagan's campaigns.
Clinton publicly burped up how much time it takes for a nuclear weapon
to be launched after the order is given. No surprises there, given
Clinton's cavalier attitude to national security.
And I do not support Clinton either, I am more opposed to Trump than I am to >>her - it really is that simple for me.
Then you would prefer 1.3 trillion in new taxes to tax cuts.
You would prefer open borders to border control.
You would prefer government controlled education to freedom of choice.
You would prefer Obamacare over freedom to choose.
You would prefer a militarily weak America to a strong America.
You would prefer a president who intends to appoint activist judges to
one who favours originalists.
You would prefer the candidate who has the least respect for the >constitution.
You would prefer a candidate who consistently puts politics before
economics to one who has at least some sense of fiscal responsibility.
Bill.
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:who
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:03:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:13:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>dot nz> wrote:
I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe
hopefulsI did nothing of the sort. I started the thread by pointing out what I >>believedpeople have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
You started the thread about Trump's locker room comments. Why does >>>that matter, but the Clintons' grubby past not matter?
to be a poignant and accurate address by Michelle Obama.
The past of both matters and I have said nothing to contradict that.
So who is the pugnacious sexist elitist?
Leaving all that aside, Hillary Clinton is for open borders, high >>>taxes, more regulations, big government, and is generally in favour of >>>turning the United States into another Europe. Trump, not so much.
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generally
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to >>>see what they can pin on Trump.
Trump is also guilty of lying, as are many politicians and political
isworldwide.
Look, trump is not the ideal candidate and I am no special pleader for >Trump. He may be one to not let the truth get the better of him, but >Clinton is a compulsive liar. I've watched the congressional
subcommittee hearings. Putting Clinton in the Oval Office would be
like having Rich80105 as President of the United States.
And I do not believe the mainstream media are working agaoinst Trump, that
toa
bow too far.
I disagree. If any Republican Secretary of State were found to be as >careless (or worse) with classified information as Clinton has been,
and admits to, the MSM would be repeating the story over and over
again all the way to November the 8th and howling for the FBI to
prosecute.
His relationship with Russia is ignored by those that are blind to the >>obvious.
What relationship with Russia? Even CNN isn't running that one. The
FBI has turned up nothing. Clinton supporters are fishing.
No, I don't give a damn about why he has the relationship but he has lied >>when
he says he has no relationship - in the eyes of some Americans that is >>tantamount to treason - if he became President it would be an impeachment >>issue.
Great. Let's hope Trump is impeached. That way Mike Pence becomes >president. Pence would be a far better candidate than either of the
current pick, or Tim Kaine or Gary Johnson.
He is simply too dangerous to be put in the job.
That same nonsense was trotted out by the liberals during both Ronald >Reagan's campaigns.
Clinton publicly burped up how much time it takes for a nuclear weapon
to be launched after the order is given. No surprises there, given >Clinton's cavalier attitude to national security.
And I do not support Clinton either, I am more opposed to Trump than I am
NAFTA,her - it really is that simple for me.
Then you would prefer 1.3 trillion in new taxes to tax cuts.
You would prefer open borders to border control.
You would prefer government controlled education to freedom of choice.
You would prefer Obamacare over freedom to choose.
You would prefer a militarily weak America to a strong America.
You would prefer a president who intends to appoint activist judges to
one who favours originalists.
You would prefer the candidate who has the least respect for the >constitution.
You would prefer a candidate who consistently puts politics before >economics to one who has at least some sense of fiscal responsibility.
Bill.How about these bickies?
Trump has said
he wants to drastically cut taxes, ban Muslims and refugees from entering the country, repeal Obamacare, bring torture back into legality, punish the families of terrorists, punish women for having abortions, withdraw from
impose a tariff on Chinese goods, end military partnerships with countrieswho
don't pay for them, and appoint judges to the Supreme Court to help him with all these goals.
Democracy? Not by my definition of the word.
Tony
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:03:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netHow about these bickies?
dot nz> wrote:
BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:13:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:I did nothing of the sort. I started the thread by pointing out what I >>>believed
I believe we are in agreement. My point was not aimed at you; I believe who
people have been friendly with is of no matter.
Tony
You started the thread about Trump's locker room comments. Why does >>>>that matter, but the Clintons' grubby past not matter?
to be a poignant and accurate address by Michelle Obama.
The past of both matters and I have said nothing to contradict that.
So who is the pugnacious sexist elitist?
Leaving all that aside, Hillary Clinton is for open borders, high >>>>taxes, more regulations, big government, and is generally in favour of >>>>turning the United States into another Europe. Trump, not so much.
Clinton is also a bare faced liar. The mainstream media generally
don't report on this, preferring instead to dig deep into the dirt to >>>>see what they can pin on Trump.
Trump is also guilty of lying, as are many politicians and political hopefuls
worldwide.
Look, trump is not the ideal candidate and I am no special pleader for >>Trump. He may be one to not let the truth get the better of him, but >>Clinton is a compulsive liar. I've watched the congressional
subcommittee hearings. Putting Clinton in the Oval Office would be
like having Rich80105 as President of the United States.
And I do not believe the mainstream media are working agaoinst Trump, that is
a
bow too far.
I disagree. If any Republican Secretary of State were found to be as >>careless (or worse) with classified information as Clinton has been,
and admits to, the MSM would be repeating the story over and over
again all the way to November the 8th and howling for the FBI to
prosecute.
His relationship with Russia is ignored by those that are blind to the >>>obvious.
What relationship with Russia? Even CNN isn't running that one. The
FBI has turned up nothing. Clinton supporters are fishing.
No, I don't give a damn about why he has the relationship but he has lied >>>when
he says he has no relationship - in the eyes of some Americans that is >>>tantamount to treason - if he became President it would be an impeachment >>>issue.
Great. Let's hope Trump is impeached. That way Mike Pence becomes >>president. Pence would be a far better candidate than either of the
current pick, or Tim Kaine or Gary Johnson.
He is simply too dangerous to be put in the job.
That same nonsense was trotted out by the liberals during both Ronald >>Reagan's campaigns.
Clinton publicly burped up how much time it takes for a nuclear weapon
to be launched after the order is given. No surprises there, given >>Clinton's cavalier attitude to national security.
And I do not support Clinton either, I am more opposed to Trump than I am to >>>her - it really is that simple for me.
Then you would prefer 1.3 trillion in new taxes to tax cuts.
You would prefer open borders to border control.
You would prefer government controlled education to freedom of choice.
You would prefer Obamacare over freedom to choose.
You would prefer a militarily weak America to a strong America.
You would prefer a president who intends to appoint activist judges to
one who favours originalists.
You would prefer the candidate who has the least respect for the >>constitution.
You would prefer a candidate who consistently puts politics before >>economics to one who has at least some sense of fiscal responsibility.
Bill.
Trump has said
he wants to drastically cut taxes,
ban Muslims and refugees from entering the >country,
repeal Obamacare,
bring torture back into legality,
punish the >families of terrorists,
impose a tariff on Chinese goods, end military partnerships with countries who >don't pay for them, and appoint judges to the Supreme Court to help him with >all these goals.
Democracy? Not by my definition of the word.
Tony
Don't forget his insane wall idea. Nor his ways with females...
On 11/8/2016 9:11 PM, JohnO wrote:
Don't forget his insane wall idea. Nor his ways with females...
Hate to break it to you but there is a wall between the US and Mexico.
And if you're ever in the area (within 50 miles of the border) there's
every chance you'll get pulled over and every-one in your car questioned
On Wednesday, 9 November 2016 08:11:57 UTC+13, george wrote:and a 1500 mile wall.
On 11/8/2016 9:11 PM, JohnO wrote:
Don't forget his insane wall idea. Nor his ways with females...
Hate to break it to you but there is a wall between the US and Mexico.
Nope - there are sections of fence though. Been there and seen it.
And if you're ever in the area (within 50 miles of the border) there's
every chance you'll get pulled over and every-one in your car questioned
Naturally. What's that got to do with this wall idea?
There is a big difference between some fences built around certain points
The cost of the wall has been estimated at between 12 and 25 billion dollars.well thought out as the rest of Trump's campaign which is as thin as the bumper
Illegal immigration into the US has been declining since 2000.
Such a wall would have many horrible environmental and ecological effects.
Trump's wall is pure stupidity. It is completely and abjectly absurd. It's as
On 11/9/2016 8:32 AM, JohnO wrote:and a 1500 mile wall.
On Wednesday, 9 November 2016 08:11:57 UTC+13, george wrote:
On 11/8/2016 9:11 PM, JohnO wrote:
Don't forget his insane wall idea. Nor his ways with females...
Hate to break it to you but there is a wall between the US and Mexico.
Nope - there are sections of fence though. Been there and seen it.
And if you're ever in the area (within 50 miles of the border) there's
every chance you'll get pulled over and every-one in your car questioned
Naturally. What's that got to do with this wall idea?
There is a big difference between some fences built around certain points
dollars.The cost of the wall has been estimated at between 12 and 25 billion
as well thought out as the rest of Trump's campaign which is as thin as the bumper stickers it is expressed through.Illegal immigration into the US has been declining since 2000.
Such a wall would have many horrible environmental and ecological effects.
Trump's wall is pure stupidity. It is completely and abjectly absurd. It's
Sigh.
The fact is that there is an existing wall/fence on the US/Mexican border.
And there is a border protection zone rigorously policed by the US
On Wednesday, 9 November 2016 09:15:23 UTC+13, george wrote:and a 1500 mile wall.
On 11/9/2016 8:32 AM, JohnO wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 November 2016 08:11:57 UTC+13, george wrote:
On 11/8/2016 9:11 PM, JohnO wrote:
Don't forget his insane wall idea. Nor his ways with females...
Hate to break it to you but there is a wall between the US and Mexico.
Nope - there are sections of fence though. Been there and seen it.
And if you're ever in the area (within 50 miles of the border) there'sNaturally. What's that got to do with this wall idea?
every chance you'll get pulled over and every-one in your car questioned >> >
There is a big difference between some fences built around certain points
as well thought out as the rest of Trump's campaign which is as thin as the bumper stickers it is expressed through.
The cost of the wall has been estimated at between 12 and 25 billion dollars.
Illegal immigration into the US has been declining since 2000.
Such a wall would have many horrible environmental and ecological effects. >> >
Trump's wall is pure stupidity. It is completely and abjectly absurd. It's
Sigh.
The fact is that there is an existing wall/fence on the US/Mexican border.
That is misleading. There are many existing fences. It is nothing like the scale of the proposed wall.
And there is a border protection zone rigorously policed by the US
Great. No need to waste $12-$25 billion on an idiotic white elephant then.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:55:25 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,676 |