Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

Friday, June 23, 2017

MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jun 23 08:41AM -0500

> from the fog of the controversy"
 
> Completely changes the intent of the quote, but then you seldom post
> anything that does.
 
No it doesn't.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 23 09:46AM -0500

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:24:19 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>> Completely changes the intent of the quote, but then you seldom post
>> anything that does.
 
>How is that substantially different?
 
I forgot. You're intelligently challenged. If you don't understand
that, no explanation is possible.
 
Oh, you have been replaced as the most retarded poster here.
Tomsein has that, in spades.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 23 09:48AM -0500


>> Completely changes the intent of the quote, but then you seldom post
>> anything that does.
 
>No it doesn't.
 
Without any doubt, it does.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 23 08:36AM -0700

On 2017-06-23 6:41 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
>> Completely changes the intent of the quote, but then you seldom post
>> anything that does.
 
> No it doesn't.
 
Yeah. It does.
 
It makes what you are trying to insist was literal and makes it obvious
that it was rhetorical.
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 23 03:46PM

Moderate wrote:
 
> > anything that does.
 
> Not at all. Dims kept Obamacare secret. Changed the rules of
> Congress to pass it.
 
 
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/
 
Apparently you are pervers; who knew.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 23 09:43AM -0700

On 2017-06-23 9:17 AM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> It makes what you are trying to insist was literal and makes it obvious
>> that it was rhetorical.
 
> Bwaahaahaa. Two tools from the same shed.
 
Did you read the speech from which that was excerpted, doofus?
 
CAN you read something that's longer than a single line?
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jun 23 10:29AM -0700

On 6/22/2017 12:36 PM, Carbon wrote:
 
>> If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance companies to be creative with coverages but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping subsidies for those who need it. I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
 
>> Interesting times ahead.
 
> The point of this bill is tax cuts for the Republican donor class, which it will definitely provide if it manages to pass.
 
Point of this bill is to bandaid the failing ACA.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 23 10:31AM -0700

On 2017-06-23 10:29 AM, Dene wrote:
 
>> The point of this bill is tax cuts for the Republican donor class,
>> which it will definitely provide if it manages to pass.
 
> Point of this bill is to bandaid the failing ACA.
 
The point of this bill is to take from the most vulnerable and give to
the richest.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jun 23 10:34AM -0700

On 6/22/2017 12:51 PM, -hh wrote:
> and this "flexibility" will actually end up being how the
> companies will create policies which initially appear to
> look good, but are actually crap that doesn't pay anything.
 
Due diligence and/or the use of a broker is always a good idea.
 
> As such, the need for a safety net for the poor is growing,
> not shrinking, so planning for future costs to be lower is
> fiscally irresponsible.
 
The expansion of Medicaid will slowly be phased out, depending the on
the state, and that is a good thing.
 
 
>> Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger
>> people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
 
> Is this a change in the allowed ratio (eg, 1:3 to 1:5)?
 
Yes...but with increased competition, who knows if the older age premium
increases will be enacted.
 
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 23 11:15AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 1:29:53 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> > The point of this bill is tax cuts for the Republican donor class, which it
> > will definitely provide if it manages to pass.
 
> Point of this bill is to bandaid the failing ACA.
 
But if the objective truly were to help ACA, then there wouldn't have been
any need or justification to have cuts to its revenue sources.
 
And as you've already told us, there's multiple places where they quite
deliberately cut their own revenue streams, such as the tax on Capital Gains.
 
 
-hh
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 23 01:27PM -0500

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:15:31 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>> Oh, you have been replaced as the most retarded poster here.
>> Tomsein has that, in spades.
 
>Nice dodge.
 
No dodge. You're dense.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 23 01:28PM -0500

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:17:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>> It makes what you are trying to insist was literal and makes it obvious
>> that it was rhetorical.
 
>Bwaahaahaa. Two tools from the same shed.
 
That actually know the difference between literal and rhetorical.
You don't.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jun 23 08:44AM -0500

DumbcuntUSA wrote:
 
> Trump: "I am under investigation..."
 
> Sekulow: "he is not under investigation"
 
> So either Trump was lying or he was telling his lawyer to lie.
 
It's not an investigation. It's a matter.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 23 09:22AM -0500


>Typical libtard. Therefore Trump DOESN'T LIE!
 
What a stupid thing to even say. He lies about his lies.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 23 08:35AM -0700

On 2017-06-23 6:44 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
>> So either Trump was lying or he was telling his lawyer to lie.
 
> It's not an investigation. It's a matter.
 
Deflection again...
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 23 03:49PM

MNMikeW wrote:
 
 
> > Sekulow: "he is not under investigation"
 
> > So either Trump was lying or he was telling his lawyer to lie.
 
> It's not an investigation. It's a matter.
 
What you think is not a matter; your ridiculous comments matter even
less.
 
What Trump and his lawyer said do matter.
 
Quotes above; GFY.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 23 09:42AM -0700

On 2017-06-23 9:13 AM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> What Trump and his lawyer said do matter.
 
>> Quotes above; GFY.
 
> Humorless turds.
 
Fact:
 
Either Trump lied when he said was being investigated, or he directed
his lawyer to lie when HE said Trump wasn't being investigated.
 
I can see why you snipped that out.
 
:-)
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jun 23 10:37AM -0700

> Typical libtard. Therefore Trump DOESN'T LIE!
 
The RAT is not a typical libtard. He's a troll. It's quite possible he
has not political affiliations. He just wants an argument.
 
The real question is whether you are going to feed him.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 23 05:24AM -0500

> from the fog of the controversy"
 
> Completely changes the intent of the quote, but then you seldom post
> anything that does.
 
How is that substantially different?
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 23 09:34AM -0500

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:05:09 -0700 (PDT), tomseim2g@gmail.com wrote:
 
>>Typical libtard. Therefore Trump DOESN'T LIE!
 
> What a stupid thing to even say. He lies about his lies.
 
That is your shtick.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 23 11:13AM -0500

> less.
 
> What Trump and his lawyer said do matter.
 
> Quotes above; GFY.
 
Humorless turds.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 23 11:15AM -0500

> that, no explanation is possible.
 
> Oh, you have been replaced as the most retarded poster here.
> Tomsein has that, in spades.
 
Nice dodge.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 23 11:17AM -0500


> Yeah. It does.
 
> It makes what you are trying to insist was literal and makes it obvious
> that it was rhetorical.
 
Bwaahaahaa. Two tools from the same shed.
--
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 23 08:47AM -0700

<https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/memo-shows-preet-bahrara-was-concerned-about-contact-from>
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 23 10:28AM

"We've ended the war on clean beautiful coal. And we're putting our
miners back to work," he said. "Last week a brand new coal mine just
opened in the state of Pennsylvania. First time in decades. Decades.
We've reversed it. And 33,000 mining jobs have been added since my
inauguration."
 
How many coal mining jobs have been added? Around 1,000.
 
You don't like to think of it as lying but when the truth is so
deliberately and grossly misrepresented that's what most people
recognise it as.
 
A complete lack of integrity.
 
Oh and that new coalmine that was being lauded as the saviour of the
industry, how may jobs will that create? About 70!
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