Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 7 topics

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 20 08:09PM -0700

'Many people are saying it was wonderful that Melania refused to wear a
scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted. We have enuf enemies"
 
Sad that a man can say that about his wife.
 
Oh, wait!
 
That's what he said about Michael OBAMA.
 
Yeah.
 
That's a man of integrity there!
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 20 11:49AM -0700

On 2017-05-20 4:02 AM, Moderate wrote:
>> Russia investigation. He couldn't be more wrong.
 
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0
 
> Unsourced.
 
Incorrect. The sources aren't named, but they are there:
 
'The White House document that contained Mr. Trump's comments was based
on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as
the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The
Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the
discussion.'
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 20 09:57AM -0700

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:58:36 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> CNN takes the lead. Not shocking to me.
 
> https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/26059-harvard-study-confirms-media-bias-against-trump
 
If you had read the study itself, you'd find that it does not assert that
"the media" have a liberal bias.
 
It says: "Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias,
their real bias is a preference for the negative."
BK@Onramp.net: May 20 08:43AM -0500

On Sat, 20 May 2017 06:40:13 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>> actions so far have actually been shown to be false?
 
>Trump's involvement has been denied by the FBI, Democrats and
> intel officials.
 
As well they should. His staff is still not all clear though.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 20 09:29AM -0700

On 2017-05-20 4:40 AM, Moderate wrote:
>> actions so far have actually been shown to be false?
 
> Trump's involvement has been denied by the FBI, Democrats and
> intel officials.
 
Provide your support for those claims.
 
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 20 09:50AM -0700


> >Trump's involvement has been denied by the FBI, Democrats and
> > intel officials.
 
> As well they should. His staff is still not all clear though.
 
This is more made-up shit by Moderate. The FBI has said nothing about Trump's involvement. Why on earth would they do that when the
investigation isn't finished? How would any Dems know whether he was involved or not?
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 20 05:26AM -0700

Greg wrote:
> have never had an honest discussion from the R.A.T. (resident
> asshole troll) and you never will. So why try...ignore IT. BK, Carbs,
> and John are honest and sincere. The RAT is neither.
 
And such an Ad Hominem advances the conversation... how?
 
Namecalling is pragmatic evidence that you've lost the debate on its merits.
 
-hh
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 20 06:33AM -0700

Greg wrote:
> have never had an honest discussion from the R.A.T. (resident
> asshole troll) and you never will. So why try...ignore IT. BK, Carbs,
> and John are honest and sincere. The RAT is neither.
 
And such an Ad Hominem advances the conversation... how?
 
Namecalling is pragmatic evidence that you've lost the debate on its merits.
 
Calling out a troll is not a debate.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 20 08:21AM -0700

Greg wrote:
 
>> And such an Ad Hominem advances the conversation... how?
 
>> Namecalling is pragmatic evidence that you've lost the debate on its merits.
 
> Calling out a troll is not a debate.
 
So you're making a claim that Alan is a troll? Upon just what specific basis?
Can you actually prove your claim? Cite please.
 
For example, in this thread, Alan is reminding Moderate (and us) that Moderate
has once again failed to substantiate his claims, particularly despite requests to
provide credible substantiating citations. YMMV on if this is "badgering", but it
is in response to Moderate, so that's not being an initiator: if you're going to find
something to complain about, how about going after Moderate for making all of
his unsupported claims? Or is that too big of a challenge for you because they
are in alignment with your own confirmation bias, so you don't want these claims
to be debunked?
 
Seems a pretty sad America if you avoid seeking the truth, no matter how unpleasant
it ends up being for you...
 
 
-hh
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 20 05:50AM -0700

Greg wrote:
> There is no way of proving that Russian hacking influenced voters.
 
There's a lot of things in the world for which we don't have proof, but
we're content with the analysts to not push for more. For example, we
still don't really have proof on how gravity works .. or specifically the
proof as to just how smoking causes lung cancer. But we have sufficient evidence.
 
Similarly, the legal standard isn't "proof", but 'reasonable doubt'. It is sufficient
to have the smoking gun and fingerprints without also needing to have every
last shell casing and bullet 100% accounted for. Nice, sure, it's but not the
absolute minimum always necessary.
 
> Either Trump will be exonerated or you will be bitching about President
> Pence.
 
Neglecting a few other possibilities, Greg?
That's very poor scientific method to be in utter denial.
 
> Both are winning scenarios for me and mainstream America.
 
Which are just what, specifically? Show us how you personally will
directly benefit from which initiatives. With numbers on the tax code changes.
 
Oh right: there's not been any actual accomplishments yet to brag about.
 
BTW, do not try the gambit of claiming that the ACA is failing, because
the ground truth there is that the deliberate creation of market uncertainty
is what's driving the individual insurers to avoid offering products - and their
effective deadline for setting 2018 rates is *this* month. Since there's no actual
bill (heck, the House hasn't even sent their bill to the Senate yet), the individuals
are facing the risk of offering products with the Fed make-up being pulled out
from under them mid year. Please explain to us all just how this creates a stable
business environment that one would desire to be in? Again, be specific and
quantitative, since this is your line of livelihood...you have no excuse to be ignorant.
 
> The Dems still have no message and their elitist ideology are disconnected ...
 
Pretty much, but that's not at all relevant to the current Republican debacles.
Nor to the Russian meddling.
Nor to Flynn's deliberate violation of military orders.
Nor to Comey's firing.
 
FYI, just had an interesting read which had a sidebar which relates to DeVos:
look back at the history of segregation in Virginia in the early 1960's ... there
was public tax money granted to private schools, and the public schools in one
county were literally shut down for five (5) years - starting to sound familiar yet?
 
 
-hh
"Welcome to Trumpton" <trumpton@maiIsorter.co.uk>: May 20 09:53AM


> > Understandable.
 
> I'm not going to go back to try and find the reference.
> Ask John.
 
FFS has not one of you the mental health to admit when you have made a
mistake. You lot have some serious disabilities.
 
--
Most people believe there is truth and there are lies. "Alternative
facts" are lies.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 20 06:00AM -0500

> CNN takes the lead. Not shocking to me.
 
> https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/26059-harvard-study-confirms-media-bias-against-trump
 
CNN is leading the coup. The discussions on that crap machine are
so outrageous SNL's depiction is more accurate.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 20 06:02AM -0500


> He said firing Comey relieved him of "great pressure" from the
> Russia investigation. He couldn't be more wrong.
 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0
 
Unsourced.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 20 06:34AM -0500

Carbon
 
> This to me is very plausible. A coordinated attack by an enemy state on the democratic process, weaponizing low-information voters to influence the election.
 
Bwaahaahaa. The media has coordinated to post fake news to the
low information Kanucks
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 20 06:40AM -0500


> I'll put this back to you:
 
> Which of the important issues that have been raised about Trump's
> actions so far have actually been shown to be false?
 
Trump's involvement has been denied by the FBI, Democrats and
intel officials.
--
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