Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 4 topics

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 31 12:27PM -0700

> outlet you so dearly believe? I'm pretty sure that Mike isn't
> surprised. I'm also pretty sure that you didn't finish the article
> for obvious reasons.
 
Obviously Fox News has evolved.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: May 31 03:02PM -0500

Dene wrote:
>> surprised. I'm also pretty sure that you didn't finish the article
>> for obvious reasons.
 
> Obviously Fox News has evolved.
 
Not to mention Tobin Smith had an axe to grind after getting shitcanned
from Fox after getting caught in SEC stock fraud.
BK@Onramp.net: May 31 03:14PM -0500

On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>
wrote:
 
>> surprised. I'm also pretty sure that you didn't finish the article
>> for obvious reasons.
 
>Obviously Fox News has evolved.
 
Point one area in which they've evolved to the better.
BK@Onramp.net: May 31 03:28PM -0500


>> Obviously Fox News has evolved.
 
>Not to mention Tobin Smith had an axe to grind after getting shitcanned
>from Fox after getting caught in SEC stock fraud.
 
How could he have an axe to grind? He was at odds with the Fox
network's policy on accepting profits from other sources, not because
of getting caught in a penny stock fraud. He wasn't found guilty
until a year after he left Fox.
 
Fox has been shown to be scripted....a fraud in itself.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 31 01:53PM -0700

On 2017-05-31 1:02 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
>> Obviously Fox News has evolved.
 
> Not to mention Tobin Smith had an axe to grind after getting shitcanned
> from Fox after getting caught in SEC stock fraud.
 
Then why did he wait so long?
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: May 31 04:01PM -0500

> of getting caught in a penny stock fraud. He wasn't found guilty
> until a year after he left Fox.
 
> Fox has been shown to be scripted....a fraud in itself.
 
You think that shit does not happen all over, you've naive.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 31 02:02PM -0700

Point one area in which they've evolved to the better.
 
Show me where they haven't.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: May 31 04:02PM -0500

>>> for obvious reasons.
 
>> Obviously Fox News has evolved.
 
> Point one area in which they've evolved to the better.
 
They aren't NBC.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 31 02:07PM -0700

> Point one area in which they've evolved to the better.
 
They aren't NBC.
 
Or CNN...which sadly use to be moderate.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 31 02:15PM -0700

On 2017-05-31 2:01 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> until a year after he left Fox.
 
>> Fox has been shown to be scripted....a fraud in itself.
 
> You think that shit does not happen all over, you've naive.
 
No, Mikey.
 
You and your ilk have been telling us that Fox is the only "fair and
balanced" source...
 
...and this shows how full of it you all are.
 
:-)
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 31 02:16PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:02:17 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> BobbyK wrote:
> > Point one area in which they've evolved to the better.
 
> Show me where they haven't.
 
Role reversal much, Greg?
 
You were the one who made the claim that Fox evolved, so
it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim.
 
And if you can't support it, then withdraw your claim.
 
 
-hh
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 31 02:16PM -0700

On 2017-05-31 2:02 PM, Dene wrote:
> Point one area in which they've evolved to the better.
 
> Show me where they haven't.
 
You're the one making the claim.
 
You tacitly admit that they were peddling bullshit, and counter that
they've evolved...
 
...but now you punk on actually supporting your claim.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 31 02:17PM -0700

On 2017-05-31 2:07 PM, Dene wrote:
>> Point one area in which they've evolved to the better.
 
> They aren't NBC.
 
> Or CNN...which sadly use to be moderate.
 
Or still is in a very extreme world.
 
:-)
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 31 02:20PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:02:17 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> BobbyK wrote:
> > Point one area in which they've evolved to the better.
 
> Show me where they haven't.
 
Role reversal much, Greg?
 
You were the one who made the claim that Fox evolved, so
it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim.
 
And if you can't support it, then withdraw your claim.
 
Read the entire thread, blathering idiot. BK was the one who made the claims.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 31 02:34PM -0700

On 2017-05-31 2:20 PM, Dene wrote:
> it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim.
 
> And if you can't support it, then withdraw your claim.
 
> Read the entire thread, blathering idiot. BK was the one who made the claims.
 
With which you tacitly agreed, Greg, but to which you countered that
"they've evolved".
BK@Onramp.net: May 31 05:48PM -0500

>> until a year after he left Fox.
 
>> Fox has been shown to be scripted....a fraud in itself.
 
>You think that shit does not happen all over, you've naive.
 
I've been around a long time Mike. Have known some of the major
networks' reporters and on-screen anchors for CBS and NBC in LA. I
can guarantee that the kind of scripting and "hit man" situations
don't exist there. Fox has a projected raison d'etre laid out by
Ailes and it stinks.
BK@Onramp.net: May 31 05:53PM -0500

On Wed, 31 May 2017 14:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>
wrote:
 
>Point one area in which they've evolved to the better.
 
>Show me where they haven't.
 
LOL. Exactly the same answer that Alan uses, and .you have nothing but
disdain for him. I'll give you the reposte that always follows; You
brought it up so show where they have.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 31 03:55PM -0700


> LOL. Exactly the same answer that Alan uses, and .you have nothing but
> disdain for him. I'll give you the reposte that always follows; You
> brought it up so show where they have.
 
Bobby,
 
I almost never use that answer.
 
I'd remove the almost, but I can't be sure.
 
:-)
BK@Onramp.net: May 31 05:59PM -0500

On Wed, 31 May 2017 15:55:55 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote:
 
 
>I almost never use that answer.
 
>I'd remove the almost, but I can't be sure.
 
>:-)
 
Nor I, but I know for sure that this conversation happens quite often,
I just don't remember which side you've been on.
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: May 31 07:00PM -0400

On 05/31/2017 03:27 PM, Dene wrote:
>> surprised. I'm also pretty sure that you didn't finish the article
>> for obvious reasons.
 
> Obviously Fox News has evolved.
 
Sean Hannity is still has a primetime show. So not so much.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 31 04:02PM -0700


>> :-)
 
> Nor I, but I know for sure that this conversation happens quite often,
> I just don't remember which side you've been on.
 
I don't think anyone here can find a single instance of me making a
claim and then insisting the other person prove it's not true.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 31 04:03PM -0700

On 2017-05-31 4:00 PM, Carbon wrote:
 
>> Obviously Fox News has evolved.
 
> Sean Hannity is still has a primetime show. So not so much.
 
That would be the same Sean Hannity who is still perpetuating the
utterly fabricated story of Seth Rich and the DNC's emails?
 
:-)
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 31 01:11PM -0700

BobbyK wrote:
 
> >Oh please. They have been under paying for decades.
 
> Oh please. Not so if they haven't signed the agreement yet. How
> stupid can you be? Never mind, we know the answer to that already.
 
If memory serves, the prior agreement dates from 2006, which called
for a budget of 1% of GDP ... which many did achieve.
 
FYI, here's a quick article with a partial chart:
 
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11>
 
In any case, even if one wants to point out that the USA spends
more than 2%, the facts of the matter is that the USA's DoD
budget includes allocations for more theaters of operation than
merely EUCOM (the one that's NATO's back yard). All told, the
US has nine (9) different combat commands identified; here's a
quick primer:
 
<http://www.dodlive.mil/2016/08/17/dods-9-combatant-commands-what-they-are-what-they-do/>
 
Now just think about how much smaller the US Navy would be if
we didn't have the Indian or Pacific Oceans as theaters. This
is pretty much why the USA has more carriers (10) than the
rest of the world combined (8), even before we consider that
our nine (9) full-deck amphibious assault ships also do flight
operations and which are bigger than some other countries' carriers.
 
 
-hh
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 31 12:02PM -0700

<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-defends-carter-page-whom-he-not-supposed-know>
 
First (March 21, 2016):
 
'RYAN: Thank you… We've heard you're going to be announcing your foreign
policy team shortly… Any you can share with us?
 
TRUMP: Well, I hadn't thought of doing it, but if you want I can give
you some of the names… Walid Phares, who you probably know, PhD, adviser
to the House of Representatives caucus, and counter-terrorism expert;
Carter Page, PhD...'
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/>
 
 
Next (January 20, 2017):
 
'The inclusion of Page is of particular interest. Just last week,
incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters, "Carter
Page is an individual whom the president-elect does not know."'
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/new-details-investigation-cast-cloud-over-trump-inauguration>
 
 
And now:
 
'[Trump:] "So now it is reported that the Democrats, who have excoriated
Carter Page about Russia, don't want him to testify. He blows away their
case against him & now wants to clear his name by showing 'the false or
misleading testimony by James Comey, John Brennan…' Witch Hunt!"'
 
So, which is it, wingnuts?
 
How do you reconcile all of that?
BK@Onramp.net: May 31 01:32PM -0500


>On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:37:30 PM UTC-7, B...@onramp.net wrote:
<clip>
>> >Just WHEN has Trump lied?
 
>> That nails it. You're a fucking moron.
 
>Thanks: you're as intelligent as a dead slug.
 
LOL. Your question above shows that you have no intelligence 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.

0 comments:

Post a Comment