On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:31:22 -0400, Alex > wrote:

snip

She's now responding to many other posts
>and inserting her opinion as if it was requested. Are you her handler?
>
this entire group is all about voicing their own opinions, solicited
or not. Responding to other posters is what happens here. There must
be another group that suits your sensibilities better.
Janet US

In article >, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

> At least I've posted a picture of myself (actually I've posted a few
> as I've changed my pic a few times), teh picture posted now has been
> there some ten years, wasn't very old at the time I posted it
> considering I was 43 in the pic. Most of the pictures posted are of
> people who are departed or otherwise disappeared. Pitifully few here
> now have the cajones to post a picture of themselves, most won't even
> post their name... using a fake name tells me all I need to know about
> who/what they are.

leo at seventy.
<http://tinypic.com/r/2ed5csz/9>
Now Gary owes us one.

leo

"Leonard Blaisdell" wrote in message
...

In article >, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

> At least I've posted a picture of myself (actually I've posted a few
> as I've changed my pic a few times), teh picture posted now has been
> there some ten years, wasn't very old at the time I posted it
> considering I was 43 in the pic. Most of the pictures posted are of
> people who are departed or otherwise disappeared. Pitifully few here
> now have the cajones to post a picture of themselves, most won't even
> post their name... using a fake name tells me all I need to know about
> who/what they are.

leo at seventy.
<http://tinypic.com/r/2ed5csz/9>
Now Gary owes us one.

leo
============

You look pretty darn good to me))


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > Well, look at his constituency.
> >
> > <https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-profile-of-the-average-Trump-supporter>
> >
> > 1.less educated than the average Republican
> > 2.poorer than the average Republican
> > 3.middle aged
> > 4.authoritarian
> > 5.populist
> > 6.unlikely to have a good credit score
>
> Typical liberal Democraps that know they are going to lose. Name
> calling, grim faces, never any sense of humor. If you don't believe in
> THEIR way, you are an idiot. ho hum.

Goodness, that made you angry. I display a general garment, and
you act as if it is made to your measure.

I didn't look hard at the polling data (not that my one course
in Probability and Statistics for my math minor makes me a
statistician, of course), but it's not just some guy making
stuff up. You are welcome to refute each of those points. I'll
follow links to demographic data that contradict the claims
made at quora.com

> Trump is going to win. When he does, too bad he can't deport all the
> libtards that follow democratic party no matter who runs...
>
> I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.

Neither am I. I voted for Bush I but not Bush II, because I could
see that he's an idiot. Frankly, I haven't been able to vote
Republican at the top of the ticket since the religious right
took over the party. I'm still registered as a Republican, though,
and will vote Republican in local races if the candidate seems
worthy of my vote.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:42:24 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Well, I'm not too sure about Bush,
> >
> >Bush the elder was perhaps low on folksy charm. He had the advantage
> >of being the Vice President when he ran for POTUS.
>
> That certainly helps. Am I right in recalling he wasn't a particularly
> popular president? As you mentioned, he wasn't great at putting on the
> charm (not that something like that would influence my opinion).

He wasn't re-elected, so he must not have been popular. There was
a recession in 1992 (the year he ran for re-election), so voters
blamed him. He was also the "read my lips, no new taxes" guy, but
he had a Democratic-majority Congress, which resulted in higher
taxes and increased government spending.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:54:58 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>
>> At least I've posted a picture of myself (actually I've posted a few
>> as I've changed my pic a few times), teh picture posted now has been
>> there some ten years, wasn't very old at the time I posted it
>> considering I was 43 in the pic. Most of the pictures posted are of
>> people who are departed or otherwise disappeared. Pitifully few here
>> now have the cajones to post a picture of themselves, most won't even
>> post their name... using a fake name tells me all I need to know about
>> who/what they are.
>
>leo at seventy.
><http://tinypic.com/r/2ed5csz/9>
>Now Gary owes us one.
>
>leo

Those look like my Flexon glasses.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:54:58 -0700, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>
>> At least I've posted a picture of myself (actually I've posted a few
>> as I've changed my pic a few times), teh picture posted now has been
>> there some ten years, wasn't very old at the time I posted it
>> considering I was 43 in the pic. Most of the pictures posted are of
>> people who are departed or otherwise disappeared. Pitifully few here
>> now have the cajones to post a picture of themselves, most won't even
>> post their name... using a fake name tells me all I need to know about
>> who/what they are.
>
>leo at seventy.
><http://tinypic.com/r/2ed5csz/9>
>Now Gary owes us one.
>
>leo

You're wearing well

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 03:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, look at his constituency.
>> >
>> > <https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-profile-of-the-average-Trump-supporter>
>> >
>> > 1.less educated than the average Republican
>> > 2.poorer than the average Republican
>> > 3.middle aged
>> > 4.authoritarian
>> > 5.populist
>> > 6.unlikely to have a good credit score
>>
>> Typical liberal Democraps that know they are going to lose. Name
>> calling, grim faces, never any sense of humor. If you don't believe in
>> THEIR way, you are an idiot. ho hum.
>
>Goodness, that made you angry. I display a general garment, and
>you act as if it is made to your measure.
>
>I didn't look hard at the polling data (not that my one course
>in Probability and Statistics for my math minor makes me a
>statistician, of course), but it's not just some guy making
>stuff up. You are welcome to refute each of those points. I'll
>follow links to demographic data that contradict the claims
>made at quora.com
>
>> Trump is going to win. When he does, too bad he can't deport all the
>> libtards that follow democratic party no matter who runs...
>>
>> I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.
>
>Neither am I. I voted for Bush I but not Bush II, because I could
>see that he's an idiot. Frankly, I haven't been able to vote
>Republican at the top of the ticket since the religious right
>took over the party. I'm still registered as a Republican, though,
>and will vote Republican in local races if the candidate seems
>worthy of my vote.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

I'm with you on that - were I an American, could have voted for Bush
Sr but not George Jr.

We've had the same situation here where I often voted Progressive
Conservative but with the advent of the religious right taking hold of
the PCs and giving us Harper, have never voted for them since. While
the Reformists from out west continue to dominate, not much chance I
will again either.

On 9/19/2016 4:37 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:42:24 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I'm not too sure about Bush,
>>>
>>> Bush the elder was perhaps low on folksy charm. He had the advantage
>>> of being the Vice President when he ran for POTUS.
>>
>> That certainly helps. Am I right in recalling he wasn't a particularly
>> popular president? As you mentioned, he wasn't great at putting on the
>> charm (not that something like that would influence my opinion).
>
> He wasn't re-elected, so he must not have been popular. There was
> a recession in 1992 (the year he ran for re-election), so voters
> blamed him. He was also the "read my lips, no new taxes" guy, but
> he had a Democratic-majority Congress, which resulted in higher
> taxes and increased government spending.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
In contrast to Bush Jr who reduced taxes but increased spending:-)

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Frankly, I haven't been able to vote
> Republican at the top of the ticket since the religious right
> took over the party.

Same as me, Cindy. Once the super religious tried to take over the
Republican party, I started voting Democrat. And that damned Tea Party
was more of the same religious nonsense.

Personally, I like parts (beliefs) of both parties. Too bad we can't
pick and choose. Sometimes, it seems like the Libertarians are that mix
but they never have a chance of winning, sadly.

In this presidential race, I like the Democrat vp choice..tim kaine. If
he was running, I'd vote for him. He was our governor once and I liked
him. He's moderate too...gets along with both dems and pubs. He's not
hard core on either side.

Regardless of who wins, I NEVER want to see the President's party also
dominate the House and Senate. The other party always needs to be there
too to counteract a runaway party policy.

In article >, says...
>
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:31:22 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>
> >Je?us wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:54:10 -0400, jmcquown >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/16/2016 11:04 PM, Je?us wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:59:21 -0400, Alex > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I knew you'd show up.
> >>>>> So you know the truth, too.
> >>>> Umm, no. Not sure I want to either.
> >>>>
> >>> I usually try to ignore this stuff but I wonder WTF he thinks the
> >>> "truth" is?! I have no idea what this loser is talking about.
> >> Who knows what's in it's head? Strange that it's fixated on you when
> >> you're not one to get nasty or obnoxious.
> >
> >She loved to attack Julie whenever she had the chance and was very nasty
>
> Interesting comment. Why do you care so much about Julie when your
> participation in this group is tangential at best? What other nyms of
> yours would we be familiar with?

You're getting warmer.

Janet UK

Ophelia wrote:
>
> About those ferrets? When are you going
> to put that big smile back on your face and have ferrets to love again???
> Hmmm??

Not near soon enough. They make the very best pet friends I've ever had.
But I had to take a break from the dying so young thing. Each death
killed part of me too.

I've got 4 ferrets buried out in the woods along with about 1/2 my
heart. I'm so tired of crying about losing a best friend one at a time.
(Yeah...I'm a wimp)

My only defense right now is a cold one. Don't get another ferret and
you won't have to deal with it's death later on.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
>
> > A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
> > work/education history.
>
> Then it's very hard to understand why you would even consider
> supporting Trump.

Trump is NOT Hillary. Trump promises change. I'll take the chance there
and hope his change is better and not worse. It's a gamble. And I do
not believe he's the crazy wildcard that you think he is.

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Ophelia wrote:
>
> About those ferrets? When are you going
> to put that big smile back on your face and have ferrets to love again???
> Hmmm??

Not near soon enough. They make the very best pet friends I've ever had.
But I had to take a break from the dying so young thing. Each death
killed part of me too.

I've got 4 ferrets buried out in the woods along with about 1/2 my
heart. I'm so tired of crying about losing a best friend one at a time.
(Yeah...I'm a wimp)

My only defense right now is a cold one. Don't get another ferret and
you won't have to deal with it's death later on.

===

I do understand I got my first rescue when I retired. I was lucky in
that she lasted a few years. When she died it hit me so hard, I had to wait
a whole year before I could go back to the rescue centre. The next only
lasted 11 months and I was determined not to let it go on so long. After a
couple of weeks I went back, but all I could do was cry. The dogs there
were beautiful but they were not my Bonnie. I had to stop going and looked
on the website instead where I found our Poppy. So, yes, I do understand.
Try not to leave it too long. Yes it is very hard when they die, but
against that, balance the happiness you all had during the years you were
together.

Good luck and Best always

O


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Jeßus" wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> >I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.
>
> 'The person' is mostly just a figurehead. You can't just ignore the
> rest of the party.

I don't. Person is anyone running for any office to me. I don't ever
want to see Pubs or Dems win the presidency, house and senate. That's
when it gets scary. Both parties have their evil sides and I don't want
either to dominate.

dsi1 wrote:
>
> Sounds like you'll vote for any party without prejudice - as long as it ain't the democratic party.

Very wrong. I vote both parties often, even in the same election. I
don't want either to rule completely.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> He wasn't re-elected, so he must not have been popular. There was
> a recession in 1992 (the year he ran for re-election), so voters
> blamed him. He was also the "read my lips, no new taxes" guy, but
> he had a Democratic-majority Congress, which resulted in higher
> taxes and increased government spending.

That's where the Democrats really screwed him over. His winning pledge
was "No new taxes." Once he got to be president, the dem-majority
congress would NOT agree to anything he wants unless he agreed to
supporting the "DEMOCRATS" new taxes. So he agreed to approve THEIR new
taxes. 4 years later, they turned that around on him and portrayed him
as a dirty liar. It was a cheap trick on the Dem side.

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like you'll vote for any party without prejudice - as long as it ain't the democratic party.
>
> Very wrong. I vote both parties often, even in the same election. I
> don't want either to rule completely.

Hopefully your great sense of humor allows you to see the irony in someone proclaiming others as "name calling" while using the words "Democraps" and "libtards" in the same post. My guess is that it's going to be tough for you or anybody else to vote for libtard democraps after Trump has them all deported.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:18:44 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like you'll vote for any party without prejudice - as long as it ain't the democratic party.
>
>Very wrong. I vote both parties often, even in the same election. I
>don't want either to rule completely.

I've never registered a party and most times I split my ticket. I
don't care that I can't vote in the primaries... this time that the
pollsters claim it's so close then it'll be the unregistered voters
(the thinking people) who will decide the winner.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> "Leonard Blaisdell" wrote in message
> ...
>
> In article >, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
>> At least I've posted a picture of myself (actually I've posted a few
>> as I've changed my pic a few times), teh picture posted now has been
>> there some ten years, wasn't very old at the time I posted it
>> considering I was 43 in the pic. Most of the pictures posted are of
>> people who are departed or otherwise disappeared. Pitifully few here
>> now have the cajones to post a picture of themselves, most won't even
>> post their name... using a fake name tells me all I need to know about
>> who/what they are.
>
> leo at seventy.
> <http://tinypic.com/r/2ed5csz/9>
> Now Gary owes us one.
>
> leo
> ============
>
> You look pretty darn good to me))

Nope, nothing wrong there!

Cheri

> In article >, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
> At least I've posted a picture of myself (actually I've posted a few
>as I've changed my pic a few times), teh picture posted now has been
> there some ten years, wasn't very old at the time I posted it
> considering I was 43 in the pic. Most of the pictures posted are of
> people who are departed or otherwise disappeared. Pitifully few here
> now have the cajones to post a picture of themselves, most won't even
> post their name... using a fake name tells me all I need to know about
> who/what they are.

I posted a pic of myself in my 40-s as well, and also...Cheri is my real
name. That's all you need to know about me.

Cheri

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:15:47 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>I've never registered a party and most times I split my ticket. I
>don't care that I can't vote in the primaries... this time that the
>pollsters claim it's so close then it'll be the unregistered voters
>(the thinking people) who will decide the winner

don't you wish all voters had this level of intelligence? Sadly, many
just tote the party line.

William

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:53:57 -0400, Gary > wrote:

> My only defense right now is a cold one. Don't get another ferret and
> you won't have to deal with it's death later on.

I sympathize, Gary. That's how I feel about getting another dog or
cat.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:40:34 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:31:22 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>>
>> >Je?us wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:54:10 -0400, jmcquown >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 9/16/2016 11:04 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:59:21 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> I knew you'd show up.
>> >>>>> So you know the truth, too.
>> >>>> Umm, no. Not sure I want to either.
>> >>>>
>> >>> I usually try to ignore this stuff but I wonder WTF he thinks the
>> >>> "truth" is?! I have no idea what this loser is talking about.
>> >> Who knows what's in it's head? Strange that it's fixated on you when
>> >> you're not one to get nasty or obnoxious.
>> >
>> >She loved to attack Julie whenever she had the chance and was very nasty
>>
>> Interesting comment. Why do you care so much about Julie when your
>> participation in this group is tangential at best? What other nyms of
>> yours would we be familiar with?
>
> You're getting warmer.

There's a few possible suspects

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 03:37:48 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:42:24 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Well, I'm not too sure about Bush,
>> >
>> >Bush the elder was perhaps low on folksy charm. He had the advantage
>> >of being the Vice President when he ran for POTUS.
>>
>> That certainly helps. Am I right in recalling he wasn't a particularly
>> popular president? As you mentioned, he wasn't great at putting on the
>> charm (not that something like that would influence my opinion).
>
>He wasn't re-elected, so he must not have been popular.

I think in terms of charisma alone (such as it was), Bush had no
chance against Clinton.

>a recession in 1992 (the year he ran for re-election), so voters
>blamed him. He was also the "read my lips, no new taxes" guy, but
>he had a Democratic-majority Congress, which resulted in higher
>taxes and increased government spending.

Yep.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:18:27 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>> >I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.
>>
>> 'The person' is mostly just a figurehead. You can't just ignore the
>> rest of the party.
>
>I don't. Person is anyone running for any office to me. I don't ever
>want to see Pubs or Dems win the presidency, house and senate. That's
>when it gets scary. Both parties have their evil sides and I don't want
>either to dominate.

With any luck, things will change substantially after this election.

On 9/19/2016 4:36 PM, Je�us wrote:
> With any luck, things will change substantially after this election.

None of your ****ing bidnits, Auztard!

On 9/19/2016 10:30 AM, Gary wrote:

>
> In this presidential race, I like the Democrat vp choice..tim kaine. If
> he was running, I'd vote for him. He was our governor once and I liked
> him. He's moderate too...gets along with both dems and pubs. He's not
> hard core on either side.

Can we elect both VP candidates only? That would be a good solution.

>
> Regardless of who wins, I NEVER want to see the President's party also
> dominate the House and Senate. The other party always needs to be there
> too to counteract a runaway party policy.
>

In theory you are right but both parties have gone to extremes so
nothing will get done if not in sync. No more compromise.

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:37:03 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:18:27 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
> >"Jeßus" wrote:
> >>
> >> Gary wrote:
> >> >I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.
> >>
> >> 'The person' is mostly just a figurehead. You can't just ignore the
> >> rest of the party.
> >
> >I don't. Person is anyone running for any office to me. I don't ever
> >want to see Pubs or Dems win the presidency, house and senate. That's
> >when it gets scary. Both parties have their evil sides and I don't want
> >either to dominate.
>
> With any luck, things will change substantially after this election.

Given that the country is controlled behind the scenes by plutocrats
and lobbyists, do you really expect change? No, there's no big conspiracy,
but money talks.

Cindy Hamilton

On 9/20/2016 4:16 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:37:03 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:18:27 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jeßus" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>> I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.
>>>>
>>>> 'The person' is mostly just a figurehead. You can't just ignore the
>>>> rest of the party.
>>>
>>> I don't. Person is anyone running for any office to me. I don't ever
>>> want to see Pubs or Dems win the presidency, house and senate. That's
>>> when it gets scary. Both parties have their evil sides and I don't want
>>> either to dominate.
>>
>> With any luck, things will change substantially after this election.
>
> Given that the country is controlled behind the scenes by plutocrats
> and lobbyists, do you really expect change? No, there's no big conspiracy,
> but money talks.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

That would ekshually BE the definition of a "big conspiracy", dearie...

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:50:38 AM UTC-4, Larty Bodine wrote:
> On 9/20/2016 4:16 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:37:03 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:18:27 -0400, Gary > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Jeßus" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Gary wrote:
> >>>>> I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.
> >>>>
> >>>> 'The person' is mostly just a figurehead. You can't just ignore the
> >>>> rest of the party.
> >>>
> >>> I don't. Person is anyone running for any office to me. I don't ever
> >>> want to see Pubs or Dems win the presidency, house and senate. That's
> >>> when it gets scary. Both parties have their evil sides and I don't want
> >>> either to dominate.
> >>
> >> With any luck, things will change substantially after this election.
> >
> > Given that the country is controlled behind the scenes by plutocrats
> > and lobbyists, do you really expect change? No, there's no big conspiracy,
> > but money talks.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
>
> That would ekshually BE the definition of a "big conspiracy", dearie...

Not necessarily. If the Koch Brothers, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet
independently used their money to affect policy, no conspiracy need
be involved.

Cindy Hamilton

On 9/20/2016 10:42 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:50:38 AM UTC-4, Larty Bodine wrote:
>> On 9/20/2016 4:16 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:37:03 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:18:27 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jeßus" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>>> I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'The person' is mostly just a figurehead. You can't just ignore the
>>>>>> rest of the party.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't. Person is anyone running for any office to me. I don't ever
>>>>> want to see Pubs or Dems win the presidency, house and senate. That's
>>>>> when it gets scary. Both parties have their evil sides and I don't want
>>>>> either to dominate.
>>>>
>>>> With any luck, things will change substantially after this election.
>>>
>>> Given that the country is controlled behind the scenes by plutocrats
>>> and lobbyists, do you really expect change? No, there's no big conspiracy,
>>> but money talks.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>
>> That would ekshually BE the definition of a "big conspiracy", dearie...
>
> Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.

> If the Koch Brothers, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet
> independently used their money to affect policy, no conspiracy need
> be involved.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
But they only _appear_ to operate "independently" of each other.

All Illimunati - each one marked.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 03:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:37:03 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:18:27 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>> >"Jeßus" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gary wrote:
>> >> >I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.
>> >>
>> >> 'The person' is mostly just a figurehead. You can't just ignore the
>> >> rest of the party.
>> >
>> >I don't. Person is anyone running for any office to me. I don't ever
>> >want to see Pubs or Dems win the presidency, house and senate. That's
>> >when it gets scary. Both parties have their evil sides and I don't want
>> >either to dominate.
>>
>> With any luck, things will change substantially after this election.
>
>Given that the country is controlled behind the scenes by plutocrats
>and lobbyists, do you really expect change?

Expect? Not as such, naturally those vested interest will fight tooth
and nail to maintain their positions. But it's been a long time (or
ever?) since the mainstream parties across the world have been this
unpopular. I can't recall seeing such skepticism/cynicism from average
voters before. That is encouraging, IMO.

>No, there's no big conspiracy,
>but money talks.

It's all in what your definition of that word might be...

On 9/20/2016 2:39 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 03:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:37:03 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:18:27 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jeßus" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>> I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'The person' is mostly just a figurehead. You can't just ignore the
>>>>> rest of the party.
>>>>
>>>> I don't. Person is anyone running for any office to me. I don't ever
>>>> want to see Pubs or Dems win the presidency, house and senate. That's
>>>> when it gets scary. Both parties have their evil sides and I don't want
>>>> either to dominate.
>>>
>>> With any luck, things will change substantially after this election.
>>
>> Given that the country is controlled behind the scenes by plutocrats
>> and lobbyists, do you really expect change?
>
> Expect? Not as such, naturally those

1. This is NOT your country, rabbit killer.

2. Your opinions are juvenile and stunted at best.

3. You have NO life in your own nation where you are an outcast.

4. The only people who don't hate you are those who have not met you.

On 9/18/2016 10:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/18/2016 9:45 AM, Gary wrote:
>
>> - Then I have a deadbolt that could be picked, I suppose.
>>
>> - Once inside, I have a chain lock. Lol and totally worthless
>>
>> - Once inside I have a slide bolt. No key. No one
>> gets in here without bashing the hell out of a steel
>> door and frame.
>>
>> That could backfire on me though if I have to call 911 and can't get to
>> the front door to unlock it.
>>
>> Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.
>>
>
> Did you see the family in Tennessee that 9 died in a fire? Small one
> story house, but the windows had bars and the doors were deadbolted.
> They were so secure they perished.

That was sad.

Jill

On 9/18/2016 8:38 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:45:58 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:18:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>
>>> Most people have dead bolts, doesn't work on them.
>>
>> But there are other ways to break (many) deadbolts:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping>
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> Well for everything there is, someone will be challenged to defeat it
>
>
That's likely the reason my mother wanted me to stay in this gated
community with 24/7 on-site security. She never did like my last
apartment even though I felt relatively safe living there. (I wouldn't
have stayed there for 12 years if I didn't.)

Fact is, if someone *really* wants to break in they will find a way.

Jill

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 11:11:13 AM UTC-6, Larty Bodine wrote:
> On 9/16/2016 1:57 PM, Roy wrote:
> > I want people who are even smarter than myself to govern.
>
> That why you got that frenchy retread, Jr. Trudeau?

That's because there are many, many people not as smart as myself...I wouldn't have bet on "JUNIOR" Trudeau because he is and has been brainwashed from the time he was born.

You Americans are not much different...you had all those Bush apes and now the Clinton clan...geez can't they find NEW people with new and fresh ideas of how governments should operate?
=====

jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/18/2016 8:38 AM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:45:58 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:18:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most people have dead bolts, doesn't work on them.
>>>
>>> But there are other ways to break (many) deadbolts:
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping>
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Well for everything there is, someone will be challenged to defeat it
>>
>>
> That's likely the reason my mother wanted me to stay in this gated
> community with 24/7 on-site security. She never did like my last
> apartment even though I felt relatively safe living there. (I wouldn't
> have stayed there for 12 years if I didn't.)
>
> Fact is, if someone *really* wants to break in they will find a way.
>
> Jill

I'm in Newark right now. Maybe I'm in the nice part of Newark but it
doesn't seem nearly as scary as people make it out to be.