Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Garvin Yee <drsmith004@gmail.com>: Jan 31 09:04PM -0700

On 1/30/2017 11:42 PM, TT wrote:
> Well?
 
> And how does it feel to live in banana republic?
 
 
Uh oh.....now that AO is over, it will be back to
politics as usual....
 
:/
 
 
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/
 
http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/garvin+yee/all
 
https://www.facebook.com/garvin.yee.37
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Feb 01 09:00AM +0200

1.2.2017, 4:14, DavidW kirjoitti:
> On 1/02/2017 12:10 PM, *skriptis wrote:
 
>> He's smart enough not to break laws
 
> Are you serious???
 
Unfortunately yes. He thinks the orange clown with tiny orange brain is
smart.
 
As if he would understand anything he signs...
Skriptis probably thinks Trump wrote those executive orders too.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 07:58PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:12:27 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > You said he was a placeholder and that if he were interesting in his own right the film would have established that and that he was good enough to build a family with while maintaining a career. I disagree with that assessment.
 
> Okay, but that still has nothing to do with the man's money. Being solid and reliable while unexciting are qualities that come as easily in casual clothes as an expensive suit. He was a stock "movie husband."
 
But the movie was trying to make a point by putting him in expensive clothes and showing their luxurious home that she had probably met a better match, at least on paper.
 


> I don't believe they were "pining" for each other because each made a choice that best fit his/her top priority in life and they probably couldn't have held onto those priorities had they stayed together. But it's still a powerful, bittersweet emotional experience to cross paths again--to the point that the memories and image of the alternate life that probably wasn't possible still made it painful for them to be in the same room at that point. IMO that's what was why she said, "Let's go" to her husband right after the vision flashed in her mind. Had they been completely emotionally detached, there would be no reason to leave abruptly. She could have enjoyed the music and perhaps even introduce her husband to the old boyfriend.
 
Ok. I agree that it may have been uncomfortable for them but at the same time I think she was happy with her choice. If anything I think Gosling's character may have loved her more than she loved him. She moved on with a serious relationship; he didn't or at least that's what the film implied.
 
 
> Enjoy then. I hope it wins lots of awards if it blocks the likes of "Fences" and "Moonlight." :)
 
I thought you liked Fences? Denzel and Viola just won SAG awards so they may win the Oscar too. I have to watch that film.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 08:01PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:14:30 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > He likes Phil Collins too.
 
> > Hey! "I" like Phil Collins! I really like "Face Value," his 1981 solo effort. I like every song on it.
 
> I liked it "back in the day." Recently I listened to that album and "Hello I Must Be Going." Both sound rather dated to me now, and not in a feel-good nostalgic way. There are only a few songs that I still like.
 
I own and really like Hello I Must be Going too! I love the song, "I Don't Care Anymore" and others on that album. I'll have to dig that CD out and listen to it.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jan 31 09:23PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:58:43 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
 
> Ok. I agree that it may have been uncomfortable for them but at the same time I think she was happy with her choice. If anything I think Gosling's character may have loved her more than she loved him. She moved on with a serious relationship; he didn't or at least that's what the film implied.
 
> > Enjoy then. I hope it wins lots of awards if it blocks the likes of "Fences" and "Moonlight." :)
 
> I thought you liked Fences? Denzel and Viola just won SAG awards so they may win the Oscar too. I have to watch that film.
 
I liked it ok but also think both Denzel and Viola did their share of scenery-chewing. Actually was more impressed by some of the supporting actors. Denzel's and Gosling's are the only lead male performances I've watched so far. I'll probably watch "Captain Fantastic," which has another of your faves--Viggo Mortensen!
 
And Viola is assured an Oscar because they give her awards no matter what. I'm so sick of her.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 09:42PM -0800

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:23:36 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
 
> I liked it ok but also think both Denzel and Viola did their share of scenery-chewing. Actually was more impressed by some of the supporting actors. Denzel's and Gosling's are the only lead male performances I've watched so far. I'll probably watch "Captain Fantastic," which has another of your faves--Viggo Mortensen!
 
> And Viola is assured an Oscar because they give her awards no matter what. I'm so sick of her.
 
From what I've been reading, most "experts" say La La Land will win best picture, best actor is between Denzel and Casey Affleck and best actress is Emma Stone. Let's see if they will be correct or if that will change in the next few weeks.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jan 31 09:53PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:42:53 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > I liked it ok but also think both Denzel and Viola did their share of scenery-chewing. Actually was more impressed by some of the supporting actors. Denzel's and Gosling's are the only lead male performances I've watched so far. I'll probably watch "Captain Fantastic," which has another of your faves--Viggo Mortensen!
 
> > And Viola is assured an Oscar because they give her awards no matter what. I'm so sick of her.
 
> From what I've been reading, most "experts" say La La Land will win best picture, best actor is between Denzel and Casey Affleck and best actress is Emma Stone. Let's see if they will be correct or if that will change in the next few weeks.
 
It changes all the time. The nominations and wins are so arbitrary. Odds even changed after the SAG awards, which is ridiculous.
 
Interesting isn't it, that the director of "La La Land" is the same one that did "Whiplash"? Two films could scarcely be more different. They favor him to win best director this time, though I'd rather it be the magnificent Villeneuve.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Feb 01 08:48AM +0200

1.2.2017, 3:44, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> If they were so in love with each other and pining away for each other after a period of time, don't you think one or both would have altered their life ambitions to try to be together or found some way to make both of their life ambitions work while being in the same place?
 
Or maybe it was just bad writing.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Feb 01 08:50AM +0200

1.2.2017, 5:58, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> But the movie was trying to make a point by putting him in expensive clothes and showing their luxurious home that she had probably met a better match, at least on paper.
 
That's just your own interpretation. I doubt any other viewer though
'she found a better match'...
 
She could have been paying for everything.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Feb 01 08:57AM +0200

1.2.2017, 6:01, Court_1 kirjoitti:
 
>>> Hey! "I" like Phil Collins! I really like "Face Value," his 1981 solo effort. I like every song on it.
 
>> I liked it "back in the day." Recently I listened to that album and "Hello I Must Be Going." Both sound rather dated to me now, and not in a feel-good nostalgic way. There are only a few songs that I still like.
 
> I own and really like Hello I Must be Going too! I love the song, "I Don't Care Anymore" and others on that album. I'll have to dig that CD out and listen to it.
 
It should be on TDK cassette.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Feb 01 07:02AM +0200

On 1.2.2017 1:06, AZ wrote:
 
> I am going to do an armchair/keyboard psychoanalysis here.
 
> For Djokovic tennis is not a beautiful experience, unlike Fed it doesn't come naturally for him. He doesn't really love the game. It's a war first. Neither does Nadal or Murray. They all play the game like butchers. What's more, Djok doesn't have a mom like Judy or an uncle like Toni to push him around and hold a fire under his ass. So he is in a mental funk, he is soul-searching and seeking peace elsewhere.
 
> Disclaimer : Could be total bs.
 
I agree.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Red Cloud <mmdir2005@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 10:36PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
> once he hits clay.
 
> Surely there are new winners in IW and Miami this year? He's won
> these 3 years back to back I think? 2014, 2015, 2016.
 
Djoko is absolutely in love with the game... Dumb to suggest Djoko is not...
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Feb 01 08:10AM +0200

"Defense Secretary James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John
Kelly fumed privately to associates over the weekend because they had
been caught unaware by a travel ban that was drafted and set into action
largely in secret by the White House, according to three people who have
spoken with them".
 
"The problem they've got is this is an off-Broadway performance of a
show that is now the number one hit on Broadway", said former House
speaker Newt Gingrich of the Trump administration. (Sidebar: Gingrich is
an informal adviser to Trump!)
 
"A little bit of under-competence and a slight amount of insecurity can
breed some paranoia and backstabbing".
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/31/donald-trumps-white-house-is-in-chaos-and-he-loves-every-minute-of-it/?utm_term=.c37d466a1322
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 09:46PM -0800

Nadal's hair is not at peak. Can't believe how much he's lost.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Feb 01 07:24AM +0200

On 31.1.2017 21:19, AZ wrote:
 
>> I've been nothing but complimentary to Fed since he won. Great match.
 
>> : )
 
> Bandwagoners are not real fans.
 
Bandwagoning is the fannieboi equivalent to smart money.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jan 31 09:22PM -0600

> On 1/31/2017 5:03 PM, fymido_lenito@yahoo.com wrote:
> Unfortunately
 
Unfortunately?
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
fymido_lenito@yahoo.com: Jan 31 09:07PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:22:52 PM UTC-8, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
Unfortunate that the current cream of the crop and the next generation has been completely forgotten due to this historic result. Tennis needs new (younger) champions. Federer and Nadal were undisputed legends even without this outcome.
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Jan 31 06:44PM -0800

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 8:10:58 AM UTC+6, Court_1 wrote:
 
> I agree more with Shakes. I feel that Nadal will give the FO another go and maybe a few more slams after that. If he doesn't see the type of results he wants, I think he'll probably pack it in. The clues are all there and he talks a lot more about retirement these days. He's got his tennis centre to go to where he will keep busy. He's a simple small town guy at heart, a guy who likes routine.
 
> Maybe Nadal and Federer will retire around the same time? End of year? It's really difficult to see Nadal playing at 35 for the love of the game without winning slams. And Federer has been giving a few hints he may retire at the end of the year, i.e his AO speech where he said "if I'm not back" and he is playing Miami this year, an event he dislikes.
 
> When these two do retire, I will take a tennis break.
 
Fed retiring at the end of this year won't be that surprising. But Nadal is comparatively still young and he just got his form back. He looked fresh to me at the end of back to back five setters. Why would he retire end of this year when he just got his groove back in a big way? I think he will be around for more than you are giving him.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 06:56PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:44:20 PM UTC-5, AZ wrote:
 
> Fed retiring at the end of this year won't be that surprising. But Nadal is comparatively still young and he just got his form back. He looked fresh to me at the end of back to back five setters. Why would he retire end of this year when he just got his groove back in a big way? I think he will be around for more than you are giving him.
 
Obviously nobody knows what will happen but it's just a feeling I have based on some of the comments Nadal has made recently and how pissed off he looked after the AO loss the other day. I've never seen him look like that before in any other loss. His slam pigeon who is five years older beat him. If he didn't think about retirement before, surely that would do it? :)
 
I think that if he doesn't get decent results at the FO this year and at slams after that, he may retire. We'll have to see if he continues to make finals or if he loses in earlier rounds again as he has for the past two years.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 07:11PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:56:36 PM UTC-5, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > Fed retiring at the end of this year won't be that surprising. But Nadal is comparatively still young and he just got his form back. He looked fresh to me at the end of back to back five setters. Why would he retire end of this year when he just got his groove back in a big way? I think he will be around for more than you are giving him.
 
> Obviously nobody knows what will happen but it's just a feeling I have based on some of the comments Nadal has made recently and how pissed off he looked after the AO loss the other day. I've never seen him look like that before in any other loss. His slam pigeon who is five years older beat him. If he didn't think about retirement before, surely that would do it? :)
 
> I think that if he doesn't get decent results at the FO this year and at slams after that, he may retire. We'll have to see if he continues to make finals or if he loses in earlier rounds again as he has for the past two years.
 
Adding, hopefully he'll win the FO this year and that will inspire him.
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Jan 31 09:06PM -0800

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 8:56:36 AM UTC+6, Court_1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:44:20 PM UTC-5, AZ wrote:
 
> > Fed retiring at the end of this year won't be that surprising. But Nadal is comparatively still young and he just got his form back. He looked fresh to me at the end of back to back five setters. Why would he retire end of this year when he just got his groove back in a big way? I think he will be around for more than you are giving him.
 
> Obviously nobody knows what will happen but it's just a feeling I have based on some of the comments Nadal has made recently and how pissed off he looked after the AO loss the other day. I've never seen him look like that before in any other loss. His slam pigeon who is five years older beat him. If he didn't think about retirement before, surely that would do it? :)
 
I think Nadal was pissed because even when he was trailing 4-5 at the very end of the match with Federer serving for the match, even in that last game of the match, he had two breakpoints 15-40 to make it 5-5. But then Fed closed it out in a somewhat scrappy fashion with two uncharacteristic Nadal UEs and some good serving from Fed. That's what Nadal was pissed about I think. He was ruing the missed opportunities. His body language told me that he was still mentally pumped to fight Roger game after game at that point. But it slipped away from him. This barely-lost experience will energize him more.
PeteWasLucky <Waleed.Khedr@gmail.com>: Jan 31 08:56PM -0800

Is this what Sampras did when he lost the AO final to Agassi?
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Jan 31 08:59PM -0800

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:56:14 AM UTC+6, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Is this what Sampras did when he lost the AO final to Agassi?
 
Sampras actually served quite well in that match. Had 20+ aces I think. Accurately painted the service box corners and kissed the Ts. It was the serve that kept him in the game. Agassi pummeled him in the rallies.
Tuan <phamquangtuan48@gmail.com>: Jan 31 07:26PM -0800

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IOrCBo4kWM
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Jan 31 08:57PM -0800

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 9:26:20 AM UTC+6, Tuan wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IOrCBo4kWM
 
Fed bh owned Rafa fh. The table has turned.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers@googlegroups.com - 11 updates in 5 topics

"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast.net>: Jan 31 12:35AM -0800

Well obviously they don't fear failure. They are going to
work for Jed York. They certainly don't fear the six years
of salary they will get out of him even if they fall flat on their
faces.
 
"Benard Atkins" wrote in message
news:2a51c510-c7bc-4865-b459-725bfbb31c51@googlegroups.com...
 
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/san-francisco-49ers-news-john-lynch-gm-kyle-shanahan/1qu9ejx9oevzh1soe18axzb49i
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jan 31 07:47PM -0800

It's not about them working for York, gary. It's about them making decisions without fearing failure. People who want to avoid failure often don't learn a damn thing. They also tend towards safe picks. Thinking outside the box without being hamstrung by the possibility of failure can get a team so very good players.
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jan 31 12:53AM -1000

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:45:52 -0800 (PST), Benard Atkins
 
>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/30/49ers-to-interview-adam-peters/
 
Good pickup. He could just as easily replace Lynch if things don't
pick up in a few years.
Benard Atkins <batkins700@gmail.com>: Jan 31 07:51AM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 2:53:52 AM UTC-8, John Walsh wrote:
 
> >http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/30/49ers-to-interview-adam-peters/
 
> Good pickup. He could just as easily replace Lynch if things don't
> pick up in a few years.
 
They could use him for sure.
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jan 31 07:41PM -0800

A HC, GM and player personnel/scouting. Good start, even with questions about Lynch.
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jan 31 12:51AM -1000

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:42:12 -0800 (PST), Benard Atkins
 
>http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/29/john-lynch-is-the-49ers-new-gm-jed-york-and-kyle-shanahan-finally-found-somebody-who-wanted-the-job/
 
That's right, he wanted the job. That's the first sign of somebody
that's going to put some effort into the job. He's going to have a
good HC and that's a better start than the team had with the last two
coaches.
"cao" <cao_black@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 02:09PM -0800

"John Walsh" wrote in message
news:iuq09c9u0ibhglmruec45ac77d536pc647@4ax.com...
 
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:42:12 -0800 (PST), Benard Atkins
 
>http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/29/john-lynch-is-the-49ers-new-gm-jed-york-and-kyle-shanahan-finally-found-somebody-who-wanted-the-job/
 
That's right, he wanted the job. That's the first sign of somebody
that's going to put some effort into the job. He's going to have a
good HC and that's a better start than the team had with the last two
coaches.
 
*****
 
You have to be hopeful here. Shanahan is unproven, but has shown he can run
an offense, and he has a pedigree (and potentially some fatherly advice).
Lynch wanted the job (yes, the other top choices all begged off). He's a
smart guy, and knows Shanahan. They should work will together (if allowed).
The Adams hire also appears good in foresight. But with Jed involved all
that matters will be hindsight. Stay the hell away Jed.
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jan 31 07:38PM -0800

Any young HC is unproven. He's got a lot of good assistant experience and he learned a lot from his dad about coaching. Add the performance of the Falcon offense and the nines finally got an offense minded coach that they were looking for since Harbaugh left.
 
Lynch will have some help, He wants to work with Shanahan and Shanahan wants him.They've got a player personnel/scouting spot taken care of and that's not a bad start. There aren't many, or any free agent quarterbacks to be had. Same for the available quarterbacks in the draft, so go defense furst, draft the QB and make hm a project, keep Ponder and get rid of Gabbert.
 
Kaepernick might be inclined to stay with the Niners after finding out the Niner have young HC who ran very good offense. In that case, it's a matter of whether the Niner and/or the new HC want him. Can he be salvaged or is he so set in his ways that he'll continue to a half game QB?
Benard Atkins <batkins700@gmail.com>: Jan 31 09:58AM -0800

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/31/49ers-hire-broncos-scouting-director-adam-peters/
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jan 31 07:23PM -0800

Excellent choice. The Broncos have good picks the last couple of years. In essence, the Nines are not going for old guard GM,HC, scouting picks. This actually might turn out well. As for Marathe, he should stay the hell out of the decision making.
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jan 31 12:49AM -1000

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:59:21 +0100 (CET), "He'll Be Sorry"
 
>> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/29/john-lynch-10-facts-about-49ers-gm/
 
>> Dammit!
 
>I almost feel sorry for him.
 
He's smart, played the game and well liked. He might just surprise
people. With Shanahan as the HC, they have a good chance of attracting
free agents and maybe running a good draft.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 6 updates in 4 topics

darkstar7646@gmail.com: Jan 31 07:33PM -0800

Why am I the only person, then, to believe an unconstitutional law is no law?
 
Mike
shiite <uncdoogle@gmail.com>: Jan 31 08:17PM -0800

> Why am I the only person, then, to believe an unconstitutional law is no law?
 
> Mike
 
Maybe you're like the mother of the tuba player in the high school band who thinks her son to be the only one in step. It is also possible that you aren't considered to be an authoritative source of knowledge of constitutional law. Think about it.
Michael <michaeldwilson2@gmail.com>: Jan 31 08:21PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:17:43 PM UTC-6, shiite wrote:
> > Why am I the only person, then, to believe an unconstitutional law is no law?
 
> > Mike
 
> Maybe you're like the mother of the tuba player in the high school band who thinks her son to be the only one in step. It is also possible that you aren't considered to be an authoritative source of knowledge of constitutional law. Think about it.
 
It is (for now) settled Constitutional law that the discrimination of anyone based on race or religion is illegal in the US.
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: Jan 31 09:27PM -0600


>>> You're pretty gouda over all
 
>> Now you're being feta me....
 
> You guys are a couple of provolones.
 
Well parmigiano me....
 
--
The tenor's voice is spoilt by affectation,
And for the bass, the beast can only bellow;
In fact, he had no singing education,
An ignorant, noteless, timeless, tuneless fellow. -- Lord Byron
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jan 31 04:41PM -0800

In article <1fb3b48a-b899-4222-8302-752f1ab9ce26@googlegroups.com>,
 
> "Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper?" A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, "Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?" […]
 
> "Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law in the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the Prresident."
 
> "Well, that's true, and like any CEO with a law firm, sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO, 'Mr. CEO, you can't do that. Don't do that we'll get us sued, it's gonna be in violation of the law, you'll regret it, please.' No matter how headstrong they might be."
 
Yate's did not offer counsel.
She did not offer a legal arguement.
Her job is to offer counsel.
She did not do her job.
Most people would resign.
She chose otherwise.
 
--
Michael Press
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jan 31 07:40PM -0500

On 1/31/2017 3:57 PM, Michael Press wrote:
 
> To get a gas explosion requires careful engineering
 
> OR
 
> tens of thousands of trials.
 
Heh
 
--
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use
two feet."
- Keef
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.football.college+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for alt.sports.hockey.nhl.mtl-canadiens@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 1 topic

Mike <mike@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:15PM -0400

Anyone care to estimate when he'll make his appearance eon the top pp
unit? I say before the middle part of the second period.
Chuck <barberphoto411@gmail.com>: Jan 31 01:26PM -0800

-2
Chuck <barberphoto411@gmail.com>: Jan 31 01:35PM -0800

Way they have been calling games, it is possible Montreal gets no powerplays
Chuck <barberphoto411@gmail.com>: Jan 31 06:15PM -0800

Damn, he scored! That will carry him for the next 10 to 15 games
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.sports.hockey.nhl.mtl-canadiens+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

bobbyknight@Onramp.net: Jan 31 09:29PM -0600

From what I've read so far Neil Gorsuch is a good choice for SCOTUS.
What he's said and done shows conservatism with logic. I'm surprised
at this from Trump. Of the final three on his list Gorsuch is much
less the or hard line type. The Democrats will still put up a fight
in retaliation of the treatment of Obama's nominee.
 
I hope I'm right about Gorsuch and wrong about the upcoming battle
over his approval.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 31 07:34PM -0800

> in retaliation of the treatment of Obama's nominee.
 
> I hope I'm right about Gorsuch and wrong about the upcoming battle
> over his approval.
 
Never let it be forgotten that the Republicans' rationale for refusing
to consider Obama's nominee was complete bullshit and that the Democrats
voted with the Republicans 97-0 to confirm Reagan's nomination in 1988.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 31 02:33PM -0800

And he's nobody's liberal.
 
'Precisely because the problem is one of temperament and character, it
will not get better. It will get worse, as power intoxicates Trump and
those around him. It will probably end in calamity—substantial domestic
protest and violence, a breakdown of international economic
relationships, the collapse of major alliances, or perhaps one or more
new wars (even with China) on top of the ones we already have. It will
not be surprising in the slightest if his term ends not in four or in
eight years, but sooner, with impeachment or removal under the 25th
Amendment. The sooner Americans get used to these likelihoods, the better.'
 
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-clarifying-moment-in-american-history/514868/>
 
'Trump, in one spectacular week, has already shown himself one of the
worst of our presidents, who has no regard for the truth (indeed a
contempt for it), whose patriotism is a belligerent nationalism, whose
prior public service lay in avoiding both the draft and taxes, who does
not know the Constitution, does not read and therefore does not
understand our history, and who, at his moment of greatest success,
obsesses about approval ratings, how many people listened to him on the
Mall, and enemies.
 
...
 
There was nothing unanticipated in this first disturbing week of the
Trump administration. It will not get better. Americans should therefore
steel themselves, and hold their representatives to account. Those in a
position to take a stand should do so, and those who are not should lay
the groundwork for a better day. There is nothing great about the
America that Trump thinks he is going to make; but in the end, it is the
greatness of America that will stop him.'
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Jan 31 06:56PM -0600

> And he's nobody's liberal.
 
Trump is on track to do four years of work in four weeks.
--
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 31 05:08PM -0800

On 2017-01-31 4:56 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> And he's nobody's liberal.
 
> Trump is on track to do four years of work in four weeks.
 
So no actual rebuttal.
 
Moving on.
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Jan 31 07:33PM -0600


> So no actual rebuttal.
 
> Moving on.
 
Trump is moving on. You are in your rut.
--
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 31 05:37PM -0800

On 2017-01-31 5:33 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> Moving on.
 
> Trump is moving on. You are in your rut.
 
Trump is proving himself to be trainwreck.
 
Moving on when you're already off the rails is just stupid.
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Jan 31 08:54PM -0600


>> Trump is moving on. You are in your rut.
 
> Trump is proving himself to be trainwreck.
 
> Moving on when you're already off the rails is just stupid.
 
He is on track and ahead of schedule in spite of partisan delays.
--
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 31 07:08PM -0800

On 2017-01-31 6:54 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> Trump is proving himself to be trainwreck.
 
>> Moving on when you're already off the rails is just stupid.
 
> He is on track and ahead of schedule in spite of partisan delays.
 
Riiiiiight.
 
He's just making shit up.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 31 05:34PM -0800

...and an American; one of those you wingnuts tell us deserve protection
at all costs.
 
'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more than
four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he posed a
"security risk".
 
The boy, reportedly a US citizen with an Iranian mother, was one of more
than 100 people detained following President Donald Trump's immigration
order.
 
In a press briefing, Mr Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer was
unrepentant about the incident.
 
He said: "To assume that just because of someone's age and gender that
they don't pose a threat would be misguided and wrong."
 
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-five-year-old-boy-detained-dulles-international-airport-hours-sean-spicer-pose-security-a7554521.html>
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Jan 31 08:52PM -0600


> 'The White House has said a five-year-old boy was detained for more than
> four hours and reportedly handcuffed at an airport because he posed a
> ?security risk?.
 
Wow four hours.
What a hardship.
--
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: Feb 01 02:20AM

I was not.
 
I was a success.
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Jan 31 04:45PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:38:49 PM UTC-5, Moderate wrote:
> > tried to decrease the power & influence of the Presidential
> > office, and to not even try to do this BS again in 2019/2020.
 
> Wow. You don't get it at all.
 
 
Oh, I most certainly "get" that you were factually wrong. Again.
 
 
> Shocker!
 
On the contrary: the Republican party has already quite clearly
demonstrated that they're willing to do anything in order to grab
power for themselves -- we've seen this proven in the State level
Gerrymandering, the naked dereliction of their Senatorial duties,
the "South Dakota Emergency" to overturn Election results and
in systematic Voter Suppression, just to name but a few recent examples.
 
And even the Davos crowd is now starting to wake up and realize
that they may have gone too far.
 
 
-hh
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Jan 31 06:59PM -0600

>> > office, and to not even try to do this BS again in 2019/2020.
 
>> Wow. You don't get it at all.
 
> Oh, I most certainly "get" that you were factually wrong. Again.
 
Cite.
 
 
--
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Jan 31 06:05PM -0800

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/justice-kennedys-confirmation-debunks-key-gop-talking-point
 
 
-hh
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Jan 31 04:48PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:03:35 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>...
> Trump is not my hero. The verdict is out....but he is getting things
> done, unlike your do-nothing, pretty boy hero!
 
By "do-nothing, pretty boy hero", are you by any chance referring to
that guy who got the ACA passed?
 
You remember the ACA, don't you? It was the catalyst which was
was actually finally having some success in reining in the rate of
cost growth in healthcare premiums. Perhaps you should go talk
to someone reasonably well informed in that industry for more info.
 
 
-hh
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Jan 31 07:13PM -0600

> cost growth in healthcare premiums. Perhaps you should go talk
> to someone reasonably well informed in that industry for more info.
 
> -hh
 
Scooby is delusional. When Obama said he would save every family
$2,500 he believed it.
 
Bought into the Arab Spring, ISIS is JV, the reset button, red
line, and ignores the debt.
 
Let's protest!
--
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Jan 31 07:17PM -0600

> shadow and pray this measure will help make you safer. It won't.
 
> You are far more likely to get accidentally shot by a child than harmed
> by a terrorist, homegrown or otherwise.
 
I am? What are you afraid of? Americans using common sense?
 
=
 
 
 
--
bobbyknight@Onramp.net: Jan 31 05:51PM -0600

>> aren't unaligned.
 
> From what I've seen, the ONLY cost calculated is the security cost. Who
>fucking cares about the menu?
 
That is just a headline to spark interest.
 
>I guess according to you, Trump should not
>be afforded the protection that Obama has.
 
Of course he should, but grown children not living with him, in-laws
and grandchildren? Even that might be OK, but Trump wants to live in
Trump tower most weekends and probably holidays. That is a farce.
Very expensive, and dangerous. It's been pointed out that large
numbers of trucks are always on the street and delivering to the
building. One loaded with C4 has the probability of bringing the
building down
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Jan 31 07:02PM -0600


> I only gave one cite because of its headline.
 
Just like the troll scooby.
 
Try reading them.
 
 
--
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Jan 31 07:05PM -0600

> numbers of trucks are always on the street and delivering to the
> building. One loaded with C4 has the probability of bringing the
> building down
 
So we should restrict people from known terrorist states from
coming into the country.
 
Obviously.
--
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 31 05:09PM -0800

On 2017-01-31 5:05 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
> So we should restrict people from known terrorist states from
> coming into the country.
 
> Obviously.
 
So why not Saudi Arabia?
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Jan 31 04:39PM -0800

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:44:49 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> > which is why it is bullshit: the money would be better spent
> > elsewhere.
 
> Your average Border Patrol agent thinks differently.
 
And you've worked with their managers professionally on physical
security capabilities to know this? Or have you just read about
their Union wants better pay & more jobs?
 

 
> > Given just how much in resources has been poured into that
> > threat vector, that's one of the least places to be worried.
 
> I'm not worried. It's the hassle I don't like....all because of radical Islamic terrorists.
 
Funny then about how those metal detectors and luggage scanners
were in airports before September 2011.
 

 
> Fireball went straight to the trashcan. And yes...it was in my carryon.
> Bags had already been checked.
> Lesson learned.
 
You avoided answer the question.
 

> > > American citizens come first Bobby!
 
> > Nope: Rule of Law comes first.
 
> The rule of law serves society...not the other way around.
 
Got a literary cite that actually supports that?
 
Because the Oxford English Dictionary has defined "rule of law" as:
 
"The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a
constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the
principle whereby all members of a society (including those in
government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed
legal codes and processes."
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law>
 
In plainer english, law as an authority which constrains, as a matter
of principle, all of society equally.
 
Here, let me highlight that for you in CAPS:
 
"The AUTHORITY and influence OF LAW in society, esp. when viewed as a
CONSTRAINT on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the
PRINCIPLE whereby ALL members of a SOCIETY (including those in
government) are considered EQUALLY SUBJECT to publicly disclosed
legal codes and processes."
 
 
> The "ban" serves Americans.
 
It is straight from Animal Farm.
 
 
-hh
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Jan 31 01:17PM -0800

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> > ratings really tank.
 
> Got news for you. The working class independents in my
> country see-through this leftist crap.
 
Well, Gallop's polling has independents, but not the subset
of "working class" independents. What specific poll has that
level of resolution? Cite, please. In any event, here's what
Gallop said this week on Independents:
 
"January 23, 2017:
President Trump's Initial Job Approval Rating -- by Key Subgroups
Jan. 20-22, 2017
 
"Independents - 40% Approve, 44% Disapprove, 16% No Opinion.
 
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/202811/trump-sets-new-low-point-inaugural-approval-rating.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles>
 
First, that's a net 4 points negative. Second, the 'No Opinion'
percentage of 16% is the largest of all of the groups surveyed.
 
> [...]
 
> The majority in the USA not interested in being like Europe. Get used to it.
 
An interesting claim. Since EU has cheaper healthcare, cheaper
higher education, roughly equivalent net effective sum taxes
on the middle class, higher happiness quotients ... just what
is it specifically that the majority of US Citizens are allegedly
"not interested" in? Please be concise and specific.
 
BTW, I do agree that most Americans don't travel internationally,
and of those that do, most of the time (55%) it consists of going
to Mexico or Canada, since there's ample statistics which back
this up:
 
<https://skift.com/2014/08/25/travel-habits-of-americans-only-13-percent-traveled-abroad-for-holidays-in-last-year/>
 
Furthermore, I'm not at all surprised that gradations of interest
are not geographically homogeneous - - in fact, the data available
appears to indicate a clear trend to the statistically more affluent
Blue States:
 
 
<http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many-americans-have-a-passport-2/>
 
 
Put it all together and of course you'll see people making
claims about what Europe's like even though they've never
been outside of the Caribbean & North America.
 
 
 
-hh
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: Jan 31 07:38PM -0500

On 01/31/2017 10:24 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
>> Thank you, I am aware of the pro-Trump propaganda. Honestly I am
>> surprised you're not able to see through it.
 
> Says the kool-aid drinking, Salon boy.

But you, not at all.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.