Digest for rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com>: Jun 20 09:32AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 11:47:03 AM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
 
> > The probability that Trump and/or his campaign colluded with the
> > Russians, which is a different thing, is non-trivial.
 
> Colluded with the Russians to do what?
 
He gained business interests in order to do this:
 
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/488876597/how-the-trump-campaign-weakened-the-republican-platform-on-aid-to-ukraine
 
By the way, this was the only plank that the Trump team modified.
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: Jun 20 11:38AM -0500


>> Colluded with the Russians to do what?
 
> He gained business interests in order to do this:
 
> http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/488876597/how-the-trump-campaign-weakened-the-republican-platform-on-aid-to-ukraine
 
Seems mild compared to the Clinton foundation and Russian uranium interests.
 
> By the way, this was the only plank that the Trump team modified.
 
So says you.
 
--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown
"wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net>: Jun 20 01:08PM -0400

"Ken Olson" wrote
 
> The link to the US Code you're referring to.
 
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+code+immigration
"wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net>: Jun 20 01:15PM -0400

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
 
> Seems mild compared to the Clinton foundation and Russian uranium
> interests.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-uV72pQKI
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 20 11:16AM -0700

In article <2240478d-86d4-450e-8df9-65bc71532ed4@googlegroups.com>,
 
> > > He's gone it's over.
 
> > We never saw a birth certificate.
 
> The final nail in the coffin of your credibility.
 
Show us the birth certificate.
 
--
Michael Press
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 20 11:24AM -0700

In article <59493f25.184119187@news.eternal-september.org>,
 
> The fact remains, as I pointed out previously, according to his birth
> certificate (which could be a fake) he was born in HI making him a US
> citizen.
 
We have not seen a birth certificate.
 
--
Michael Press
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jun 20 11:33AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 2:24:06 PM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:
> > certificate (which could be a fake) he was born in HI making him a US
> > citizen.
 
> We have not seen a birth certificate.
 
You're completely unhinged.
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 20 02:59PM -0400

On 6/20/2017 1:08 PM, wolfie wrote:
 
> "Ken Olson" wrote
 
>> The link to the US Code you're referring to.
 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+code+immigration
 
You're quite the smrat ass, aren't you. IF you read it, you saw that
I'm correct.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 20 12:17PM -0700

In article <f33511ef-db0a-431f-83e2-132121d59302@googlegroups.com>,
> > > citizen.
 
> > We have not seen a birth certificate.
 
> You're completely unhinged.
 
Show us the birth certificate.
 
--
Michael Press
"wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net>: Jun 20 03:29PM -0400

"Ken Olson" wrote
 
> IF you read it, you saw that I'm correct.
 
No, I didn't. If you think you are, quote the part of
the law backing you up. I did, after all.
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Jun 20 07:29PM

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:33:18 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>> > citizen.
 
>> We have not seen a birth certificate.
 
>You're completely unhinged.
 
The certificate of live birth lists him as Obama II, not Obama, Jr.
 
II is usually for same name but descent from a relative (brother?) not
direct descent. Do you know why that was?
 
Isn't saying he is black when only half-black inaccurate, even a lie?
 
Hugh
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jun 20 10:46AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 11:47:05 AM UTC-4, Futbol Phan wrote:
> Turns out that it's "mean" as well...
 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/trump-mean-health-care/index.html
 
Remember how upset Republicans were about "we have to read it to know what's in it"?
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jun 20 10:50AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 1:46:08 PM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
> > Turns out that it's "mean" as well...
 
> > http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/trump-mean-health-care/index.html
 
> Remember how upset Republicans were about "we have to read it to know what's in it"?
 
I meant "pass it" not "read it"
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: Jun 20 12:54PM -0500


>> http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/trump-mean-health-care/index.html
 
> Remember how upset Republicans were about "we have to read it to know
> what's in it"?
 
When there is no chance of bipartisanship, why give the other side
the talking points early?
 
Obamacare was a disaster because it was rammed through on partisan lines. Obama
and the Democrats couldn't be bothered to sell it to the nation because they
thought they had the power. Turns out that passing it was not only a disaster
for the country, but a disaster for the Democrats.
 
If Republicans really thought there was a chance to fix healthcare on
a bipartisan basis, they might share it with Democrats. But there
isn't, so they won't. And they won't pay the price for this, because
Democrats are so obviously unhinged in #Resistance mode.
 
Meanwhile, this headline at the Associated Press:
 
Iowa's last statewide exchange insurer seeks 43 percent hike
 
--
When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems tend to look
like nails. -- Abraham Maslow
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 20 11:20AM -0700

In article <9426f523-0dd6-4b1b-820b-1793e9d7d38c@googlegroups.com>,
 
> Turns out that it's "mean" as well...
 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/trump-mean-health-care/index.html
 
All according to plan. The AHCA fails on its own merits.
 
--
Michael Press
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jun 20 11:32AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 1:54:21 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> and the Democrats couldn't be bothered to sell it to the nation because they
> thought they had the power. Turns out that passing it was not only a disaster
> for the country, but a disaster for the Democrats.
 
Obamacare had 100 Senate hearings and 161 amendments from Republicans.
 
That the Democrats couldn't get it passed in a bipartisan nature was not for lack of trying.
 
Repubs aren't even trying. It's supremely ironic that you are chastising the Democrats for supposedly passing it by themselves because they had the power, when you're describing what the GOP is doing now, to a T.
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: Jun 20 01:41PM -0500

>> for the country, but a disaster for the Democrats.
 
> Obamacare had 100 Senate hearings and 161 amendments from Republicans.
 
> That the Democrats couldn't get it passed in a bipartisan nature was not for lack of trying.
 
No, it was for lack of a good bill. That Republicans didn't vote for that
abortion is to their credit. It was based on a lie, and the results have been
dreadful.

 
> Repubs aren't even trying.
 
Why should they? When the one party calls the other murderers it is
not a signal to bargain in good faith. Democrats are slow-walking
everything, even approvals of appointments that are a slamdunk.
 
> It's supremely ironic that you are chastising the Democrats for
> supposedly passing it by themselves because they had the power, when
> you're describing what the GOP is doing now, to a T.
 
They don't have the power to pass anything that would make sense, other
than a repeal and retrenchment. That seems good compared to Obamacare,
alas.
 
--
Some people have twenty years of experience, some people have
one year of experience twenty times over. -- Anonymous
Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net>: Jun 20 11:52AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 1:32:50 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
 
> Obamacare had 100 Senate hearings and 161 amendments from Republicans.
 
> That the Democrats couldn't get it passed in a bipartisan nature was not for lack of trying.
 
> Repubs aren't even trying. It's supremely ironic that you are chastising the Democrats for supposedly passing it by themselves because they had the power, when you're describing what the GOP is doing now, to a T.
 
I'm confused. Why did Pelosi say you'll have to pass it to see what's in the bill? There have been a lot of hearings on the House bill. There will probably be hearings on the Senate version. You have to hand it to the democrats. Almost no bill is public until it is submitted. The democrats have somehow turned this into scurrilous behavior. The dems are killin it in the propaganda wars.
 
Doug
dotslashderek@gmail.com: Jun 20 11:59AM -0700

Another freaking night is day argument from a supporter of the patriot act / clear skies / fair tax party.
 
I could only wish the left had 1% of the ballsy propaganda chops of the right. Except I don't.
 
Cheers.
Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net>: Jun 20 12:03PM -0700

> Another freaking night is day argument from a supporter of the patriot act / clear skies / fair tax party.
 
> I could only wish the left had 1% of the ballsy propaganda chops of the right. Except I don't.
 
> Cheers.
 
I'll take your substance-free response as an admission that you have no response.
 
Doug
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jun 20 12:16PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 2:52:22 PM UTC-4, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
 
> > That the Democrats couldn't get it passed in a bipartisan nature was not for lack of trying.
 
> > Repubs aren't even trying. It's supremely ironic that you are chastising the Democrats for supposedly passing it by themselves because they had the power, when you're describing what the GOP is doing now, to a T.
 
> I'm confused. Why did Pelosi say you'll have to pass it to see what's in the bill? There have been a lot of hearings on the House bill. There will probably be hearings on the Senate version.
 
McConnell says he wants a vote on the Senate bill before the 4th of July recess. What kind of hearings do you think they can get done in that time?
"wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net>: Jun 20 03:21PM -0400

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
 
> Meanwhile, this headline at the Associated Press:
> Iowa's last statewide exchange insurer seeks 43 percent hike
 
The "why" here is actually interesting. There's ONE
person in Iowa who uses over $1M/month in medical
treatment. (He has a rare blood disorder.)
 
He obviously blows through his deductible in the first
few days of the year. After that, the insurer is on the
hook for over $12M, with possibly more if he has any
complications.
 
Under Obamacare, he can't be denied coverage and
the insurer can't cap payouts on a year or lifetime basis.
So the insurer has to try to spread out the cost - and that
means higher premiums. Or, with some, simply leaving
the market since they can't afford to risk this guy signing
up with THEM. (That's why Iowa is down to one exchange
carrier.)
 
Under the GOP plan, he'd get denied coverage or it
would be offered at a price he clearly couldn't pay.
(What would they charge for someone who they KNOW
is going to use $12M a year?) So he goes to a high-risk
pool, if Iowa creates one, or moves to another state that
does. And he still has to pay more, but now the bulk of
the cost is on the taxpayers. Or he simply goes without
coverage, can't get the maintenance care he needs, and
only gets treated by a hospital in urgent situations (who
then has to charge more for everyone or go broke).
 
(Just a side note on high-risk pools - Iowa has about 1.5M
employed residents. So, if it's a high-risk pool, each would
have to chip-in $8 in taxes just for him.)
 
So, all you free market types - what's the free market
solution here? The crazy left-wing solution is single-payer.
One $12M/yr patient spread over 150M isn't that much...
"wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net>: Jun 20 03:26PM -0400

"Emperor Wonko the Sane" wrote
 
> There have been a lot of hearings on the House bill
 
The House bill was DOA in the Senate. It's not being
took up. The Senate is writing their own bill.
 
> There will probably be hearings on the Senate version.
 
The Senate GOP leader says otherwise. I'd think he'd
know. (The GOP Senate Bill isn't being sent to any committee.)
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jun 20 12:28PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:21:53 PM UTC-4, wolfie wrote:
> have to chip-in $8 in taxes just for him.)
 
> So, all you free market types - what's the free market
> solution here?
 
He dies.
 
Duh.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 20 12:23PM -0700

<http://tinyurl.com/ybd3feof>
 
--
Michael Press
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.

0 comments:

Post a Comment