Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2016 7:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/13/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/13/2016 11:26:00 PM (view original):
I have no problem voting for a republican if they're more appealing than the democrat. It just doesn't happen very often.

Have you ever voter for a Republican in anything above local elections?

You've given a lot of "would have, if . . . " hypotheticals.

He's already said he hasn't. And he won't. Liberal for Life.

Yet he found it necessary to grill you about which D's you've voted for.

Poor dumb hypocritical BL.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/13/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/13/2016 11:26:00 PM (view original):
I have no problem voting for a republican if they're more appealing than the democrat. It just doesn't happen very often.

Have you ever voter for a Republican in anything above local elections?

You've given a lot of "would have, if . . . " hypotheticals.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I did vote Republican for congress in the early 2000s.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/12/2016 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Nope. What Senate/Congressional Democrats have you voted for?

This was your response to my question of "Have you ever voted for a Repub in Senate, House of Reps or even Governor?"

So are you lying like Hillary now? Lying when the truth would benefit your argument.

I answered without thinking about it before. But there was a congressman in either 02 or 04 that I voted for. I think mostly because I didn't like the Democrat.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2016 9:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/12/2016 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Nope. What Senate/Congressional Democrats have you voted for?

This was your response to my question of "Have you ever voted for a Repub in Senate, House of Reps or even Governor?"

So are you lying like Hillary now? Lying when the truth would benefit your argument.

b_l and Hillary are always equally as honest with people. (She has her e-mail "situation" and he has his Admin. site-mail "situation".)

Yeah.................OK.

Eleven days before the election, and the FBI is reopening it's investigation into Queen Hillary's emails.

God help us, we're doomed.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/28/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):
Eleven days before the election, and the FBI is reopening it's investigation into Queen Hillary's emails.

God help us, we're doomed.

It's not re-opening the investigation. Read the letter.

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote the chairmen. "I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."

WTF do you think that means?

It means that they are reviewing emails they didn't see before. They aren't re-investigating emails they already looked at.

In my opinion, this is the last we hear from the FBI on this. There will be nothing materially different in these emails.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/28/2016 3:54:00 PM (view original):
It means that they are reviewing emails they didn't see before. They aren't re-investigating emails they already looked at.

In my opinion, this is the last we hear from the FBI on this. There will be nothing materially different in these emails.

What exactly are you basing that opinion on? (Please don't say Clinton's say-so.)
These were obviously hidden better, so isn't it likely they are more "sensitive"?

It's my opinion, completely free of evidence. Just a guess.

I doubt there was an attempt to hide the emails or that they are materially different from emails already reviewed.