---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 If you looked at it objectively, without *emotion*( thought you would 
appreciate a little sexism), you would see I *compared* you and your devotion 
to Hillary, to Bevan and his devotion to Maharishi. A comparison that  most any 
TMer on FFL could appreciate, a point of reference.

 Yes, I understood the "comparison." As I said, it's totally wrong; read what I 
wrote again. I'm not at all "devoted" to Hillary. You're confusing support with 
devotion, but the former doesn't imply the latter.

 And yes, you do mean it as a putdown; it suggests a lack of objectivity 
regarding Hillary.

 BTW, are you insulted to be called a TM true believer?


 It isn't a matter of being insulted. It's just totally wrong.

 Where Barry's concerned, calling me a "cult apologist" is not just a lie, it's 
intended as an insult. Recently he's taken to calling me a "paid cult 
apologist" and "paid Hillary apologist." Both extremely malicious lies.

 All this crap is intended to discredit what I say in the absence of solid 
substantive responses. It's cowardly, to say the least.

 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 1:51 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe
   I didn't say you did, Mike.



 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 Oh c'mon Judy. I'm not calling you a TM or Maharishi TBer. 



 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 1:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe

   This (from both of you) is as absurd as Barry claiming I'm a "cult 
apologist" for TM. I don't proselytize for Hillary or for TM. All I've been 
doing is addressing unfair and/or inaccurate accusations and characterizations. 
I'm hardly a True Believer in TM or a fanatical supporter of Hillary, and you 
both know it.

 You just can't abide it when what you say about Hillary is refuted, so you 
have to "shoot the messenger."

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 Duh!!!!!!!!! Most dedicated of True Believers. Judy could be Hillary's *Bevan 
 Hillary's *skin boy*. LOL
  BTW, that's not meant to be *mean spirited*. In fact, a compliment.

 From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 11:02 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe

 Hey Mike, you think that Judy might be a fanatical Hillary supporter? :-D 
 On 07/07/2016 06:41 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] 


 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<mdixon.6569@...> mailto:mdixon.6569@... wrote :
 Actually, I've been saying for at least a month or longer that she would *not* 
be indicted. Not because she didn't do anything wrong but because she would be 
covered and protected by the Obama administration. It just wasn't going to 
happen. The *fix* was in.

 Nonsense. That's just wildly paranoid. Comey is one of that rarest of beasts: 
a straight-arrow, incorruptible Republican. He was crystal clear in his 
announcement as to why she wasn't being indicted: the circumstances necessary 
to justify an indictment didn't exist.
 And it had been decided for some time that Lynch would go along with whatever 
the FBI recommended. (BTW, her meeting with Bill Clinton was private but not 
 Yes, Comey did Hillary considerable damage. He did not, however, accuse her of 
having lied. She certainly wasn't st! raightforward, but I'm not sure she told 
any actual lies.
 Trump has already f'd it up. His speech last night was bizarre. Instead of 
focusing on what Comey said about Hillary, he attacked Comey himself, and 
veered off that topic to defend his anti-Semitic retweet of the six-pointed 
star, which came from a white supremacist Web site. He said he didn't think it 
needed to be changed. Talk about a fiasco! He's totally losing it.





 Obama has been saying in interviews since April, that she never risked 
national security, yada, yada, yada. Comments like that can be *seen* as 
tampering with an investigation. Just like Clinton meeting with the AG, in 
secret, on an airplane.
 Quite frankly, I think Comey may have done something more dangerous for the 
Democrats. While not recommending indictment, it looked very political, at the 
same time he ripped her apart and in so many words called her irresponsibl! e 
and a liar, with the backing of the FBI. One of Hillary's weaknesses in the 
polls was her lack of trustworthiness. Comey just verified that with his speech 
and parts of it will be played over and over again during the rest of the 
campaign. Her lying has been proven by the FBI and she projects the image of 
being above the law since she wasn't indicted.
 Had she been indicted and forced to resign from her campaign, Democrats could 
have drafted Joe or gone with Bernie. Joe would have had an easier time 
bringing in pissed Bernie fans.

 Trump has been , almost certainly, handed victory.. if he can keep from *f*ing 
it up.

 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" mailto:authfriend@...[FairfieldLife] 
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 11:20 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Morning Joe

   Would that be the "fiasco" of the Hillary-haters predicting confidently for 
months that she would be indicted, tried, convicted, and jailed?
 You have one of these, right, Mike?
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<mdixon.6569@...> mailto:mdixon.6569@... wrote :



 Morning Joe Rips Hillary, Comey, Obama Over Email Fiasco Joe Scarborough and 
Mika Brzezinski rip Hillary Clinton, James Comey and President Obama over the 
email fiasco. ...








Reply via email to