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

Monday, May 1, 2017

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 01 10:57AM -0700

Asked by on Face the Nation if he stood by his
claim that Obama wiretapped his office, he said:
 
"I don't stand by anything. I just-- you can take
it the way you want. I think our side's been proven
very strongly. And everybody's talking about it.
And frankly it should be discussed. I think that
is a very big surveillance of our citizens.
I think it's a very big topic. And it's a topic
that should be number one. And we should find out
what the hell is going on."
 
Brilliant! Absolutely fucking brilliant!
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 01 10:59AM -0700

On 2017-05-01 10:57 AM, John B. wrote:
> that should be number one. And we should find out
> what the hell is going on."
 
> Brilliant! Absolutely fucking brilliant!
 
Hilarious.
 
How can anyone still support this clown.
BobbyK@Onramp.net: May 01 02:00PM -0500

On Mon, 1 May 2017 10:57:15 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>that should be number one. And we should find out
>what the hell is going on."
 
>Brilliant! Absolutely fucking brilliant!
 
His first sentence cleared everything up.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 01 10:55AM -0700

...the way our wingnuts insist...
 
...why is he still holding what are essentially campaign rallies?
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>: May 01 07:55PM +0200

No one responds to the pissant troll anymore!
 
BOO HOO HOO!
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 01 10:49AM -0700

...but not so funny for the wingnuts.
 
:-)
 
<https://xkcd.com/1831/>
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 01 04:09AM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:18:39 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > Honest statement.
 
> So then perhaps he shouldn't have sold you all a bill of goods when he
> said it would be "easy"...
 
The problem with him making such claims is that with the 'golly, its hard!'
recant, it narrows the possibilities, and either option is damning:
 
 
* He failed to do his due diligence before making the 'easy' claim
 
or
 
* He lied.
 
(Choose your poison).
 
 
> >> time.
 
> > And...exactly what have they done wrong so far?
 
> LOL!
 
At the very least, appointing ... but then launching ... Flynn shows
that they failed to have even the most basic of vetting processes for staff.
 
 
-hh
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 01 05:51AM -0700

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 8:40:15 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > personal friends, but the politics were so strained that Boenher
> > couldn't achieve any non-partisanship.
 
> Because Obama was to much of an ideologue to compromise.
 
 
If you think Obama was an ideologue, then you clearly don't
know what the word means.
 
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 01 05:53AM -0700

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> >> it would be easy, and now shows a distaste for having pursued it.
 
> > "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
 
> Honest statement.
 
Honest admission of stupidity is more accurate. Most people
knew that health care was complicated.
 
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 01 05:56AM -0700

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > are the worst Cabinet appointments in a very long
> > time.
 
> And...exactly what have they done wrong so far?
 
Pruitt has abrogated Obama's Clean Power Plan and has
purged the EPA website of research and data on climate
change.
BobbyK@Onramp.net: May 01 09:36AM -0500

On Mon, 1 May 2017 08:35:03 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>
wrote:
 
>> change.
 
>The Supreme Court struck it down.
>Butthurt.
 
Proving that he did something wrong.
Asshole.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 01 08:51AM -0700

> >> change.
 
> >The Supreme Court struck it down.
> >Butthurt.
 
No, it did not. It issued a stay pending lower court review.
 
BobbyK@Onramp.net: May 01 11:10AM -0500

On Mon, 1 May 2017 08:51:21 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
 
>> >The Supreme Court struck it down.
>> >Butthurt.
 
>No, it did not. It issued a stay pending lower court review.
 
Just another issue of Mod's wealth of knowledge.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 01 09:20AM -0700

On 2017-05-01 5:56 AM, John B. wrote:
 
> Pruitt has abrogated Obama's Clean Power Plan and has
> purged the EPA website of research and data on climate
> change.
 
Which Bush's appointee did NOT do...
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 01 09:21AM -0700

On 2017-05-01 6:35 AM, Moderate wrote:
>> purged the EPA website of research and data on climate
>> change.
 
> The Supreme Court struck it down.
 
The SC "struck down" an EPA website, doofus?
 
Cite, please.
 
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 01 10:15AM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 12:21:06 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > The Supreme Court struck it down.
 
> The SC "struck down" an EPA website, doofus?
 
> Cite, please.
 
He meant they struck down the Clean Power Plan, which
they did not.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 01 10:18AM -0700

On 2017-05-01 10:15 AM, John B. wrote:
 
>> Cite, please.
 
> He meant they struck down the Clean Power Plan, which
> they did not.
 
I know he meant that.
 
I was just having fun with the sloppiness with which he communicates
what I must laughably call his "ideas".
 
:-)
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 01 10:45AM -0700

On 2017-05-01 10:24 AM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> No, it did not. It issued a stay pending lower court review.
 
> So when you said Trump abrogated it you meant something else?
 
Where did he say that?
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 01 10:48AM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:45:07 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> Butthurt.
 
> >> No, it did not. It issued a stay pending lower court review.
 
> > So when you said Trump abrogated it you meant something else?
 
No, I meant that he abrogated it. The CPP was still in effect
after SCOTUS sent it back to the Appeals Court.
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: May 01 05:29PM

Tell us Shit Stain!!!!!
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 01 08:35AM -0500


> Pruitt has abrogated Obama's Clean Power Plan and has
> purged the EPA website of research and data on climate
> change.
 
The Supreme Court struck it down.
Butthurt.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 01 09:48AM -0500

>>Butthurt.
 
> Proving that he did something wrong.
> Asshole.
 
Yes he did. It was Obama's order.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 01 12:24PM -0500


>> >The Supreme Court struck it down.
>> >Butthurt.
 
> No, it did not. It issued a stay pending lower court review.
 
So when you said Trump abrogated it you meant something else?
 
--
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 01 08:49AM -0700

President Trump during an interview that airs Monday questioned why the country had a Civil War and suggested former President Andrew Jackson could have prevented it had he served later.
 
"I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," Trump said during an interview with the Washington Examiner's Salena Zito.

"He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, 'There's no reason for this.'"

Jackson, the nation's seventh president, died in 1845. The Civil War began in 1861.
 
"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?" Trump said during the edition of "Main Street Meets the Beltway" scheduled to air on SiriusXM.

"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"
 
People don't ask why there was a civil war? Is he fucking serious?
Americans have been debating that question for 150 years! This is
rank stupidity.
 
More here:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331349-trump-why-was-there-the-civil-war
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 01 07:59AM -0700

Not a particularly glowing article title:
 
"Eight ways Trump got rolled in his first budget negotiation"
 
Which then highlights the following (comments in parens)
 
"-- Now that the language has posted, here are the eight most
notable areas Trump caved in his first big spending negotiation:
 
1. There are explicit restrictions to block the border wall.
 
(the 2006 'loophole' which was being used to try to
fast-track has been closed)
 
2. Non-defense domestic spending will go up, despite the
Trump team's insistence he wouldn't let that happen.
 
3. Barack Obama's cancer moonshot is generously funded.
 
(instead of NIH getting cut by $1.2B, they're getting a +$2B boost)
 
4. Trump fought to cut the EPA by a third. The final deal
trims its budget by just 1 percent, with no staff cuts.
 
(-$80M out of $8B)
 
5. He didn't defund Planned Parenthood.
 
6. The president got less than half as much for the military
as he said was necessary.
 
(asked for $30B; got $12.5B ... option for +$2.5B if/when he
delivers a detailed plan on how to defeat the Islamic State)
 
7. Democrats say they forced Republicans to withdraw more
than 160 riders.
 
(poison pills, such as trying to kill the fiduciary rule)
 
and water down environmental regulations.
 
(plus the Justice Department was blocked from restricting
the dispensing of medical marijuana in states where it has
been legalized...interesting!)
 
8. To keep negotiations moving, the White House already
agreed last week to continue paying Obamacare subsidies."
 
(although since it is only for ~6 months, not clear if
this is enough to reduce market uncertainty for the
insurers who have to set rates IIRC this month for CY18).
 
 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/05/01/daily-202-eight-ways-trump-got-rolled-in-his-first-budget-negotiation/590687f2e9b69b3a72331f09/>
 
 
"Soon after the deal was reached last night, Chuck Schumer
and Nancy Pelosi quickly put out celebratory statements.
But McConnell and Paul Ryan did not."
 
 
-hh
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.

0 comments:

Post a Comment