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

Thursday, June 15, 2017

BK@Onramp.net: Jun 15 05:06PM -0500

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:14:44 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>>>It is a fools attempt to make a point.
 
>> And you weren't able to do so.
 
>It was your buddy's miguided argument. Please try and follow along.
 
You dense prick. Look up the word sarcasm. At least try to look
educated if not quasi intelligent.
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 15 05:25PM -0700

> "I don't know"
> "I can't answer that"
> "Executive Privilege"
 
Sounds like Shrillary...
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 15 05:29PM -0700

>> "I can't answer that"
>> "Executive Privilege"
 
> Sounds like Shrillary...
 
"But, but, but... ...Hillary!"
 
LOL
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 15 05:33PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 10:28:32 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> In 2017 the right may seek to do the same. Bad idea."
 
> TL;DR: there's hypocrite assholes ... don't be one of them.
 
> -hh
 
The one where they retracted their outrageous claim.
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 15 05:35PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:29:15 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > Sounds like Shrillary...
 
> "But, but, but... ...Hillary!"
 
> LOL
 
They can treat stutterers these days...
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 15 05:35PM -0700


>> "But, but, but... ...Hillary!"
 
>> LOL
 
> They can treat stutterers these days...
 
Who's your therapist, then?
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 15 05:37PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:35:57 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> >> LOL
 
> > They can treat stutterers these days...
 
> Who's your therapist, then?
 
You're the stutterer, don't you even READ your posts?
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 15 05:39PM -0700


>>> They can treat stutterers these days...
 
>> Who's your therapist, then?
 
> You're the stutterer, don't you even READ your posts?
 
You seem unfamiliar with what the word "stutter" means...
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 15 05:41PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> >> Who's your therapist, then?
 
> > You're the stutterer, don't you even READ your posts?
 
> You seem unfamiliar with what the word "stutter" means...
 
Don't be ashamed - you are in good company:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulDv-hs5unI
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 15 06:08PM -0700


>> TL;DR: there's hypocrite assholes ... don't be one of them.
 
>> -hh
 
> The one where they retracted their outrageous claim.
 
A link...
 
...or you have nothing.
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 15 06:32PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 6:08:49 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > The one where they retracted their outrageous claim.
 
> A link...
 
> ...or you have nothing.
 
Is that your BEST comeback? Hint: when you're in a hole STOP DIGGING!
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 15 09:38PM -0500

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 19:57:49 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>> You dense prick. Look up the word sarcasm. At least try to look
>> educated if not quasi intelligent.
 
>Sarcasm? Obviously not sarcasm, another lie.

If things aren't within your limited comprehension it's immediately a
lie. Pitiful, and expected.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 15 09:39PM -0500

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:03:52 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>Yes the very same. Hh knows how to search Google, but he just
> pukes up whatever hit he gets. He doesn't verify
> anything.
 
 
You wouldn't understand it anyway.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 15 09:41PM -0500


>> A link...
 
>> ...or you have nothing.
 
>Is that your BEST comeback? Hint: when you're in a hole STOP DIGGING!
 
You must be very familiar with that situation.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 15 06:23PM -0700

I bet SCOTUS won't even agree to hear the case.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 15 07:57PM -0500


>>It was your buddy's miguided argument. Please try and follow along.
 
> You dense prick. Look up the word sarcasm. At least try to look
> educated if not quasi intelligent.
 
Sarcasm? Obviously not sarcasm, another lie.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 15 08:03PM -0500


> The one where they retracted their outrageous claim.
 
Yes the very same. Hh knows how to search Google, but he just
pukes up whatever hit he gets. He doesn't verify
anything.
--
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 15 05:44PM -0700

'Lobbyist for Russian interests says he attended dinners hosted by Sessions
 
An American lobbyist for Russian interests who helped craft an important
foreign policy speech for Donald Trump has confirmed that he attended
two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently
contradicting the attorney general's sworn testimony given this week.'
 
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/15/lobbyist-russian-interests-jeff-sessions-testimony>
 
'Sessions testified under oath on Tuesday that he did not believe he had
any contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests over the
course of Trump's campaign. But Richard Burt, a former ambassador to
Germany during the Reagan administration, who has represented Russian
interests in Washington, told the Guardian that he could confirm
previous media reports that stated he had contacts with Sessions at the
time.
 
"I did attend two dinners with groups of former Republican foreign
policy officials and Senator Sessions," Burt said.'
 
Awwww... ...wingnuts:
 
How are you going to call this one "anonymous"?
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 15 05:11PM -0500

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:43:42 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>> climate change.
 
>> And you have the gonads to call Moderate clueless?
 
>BK has no gonads. She is a woman.
 
 
Again your stupidity shows, LaVille was responding to John, not me.
 
There are classes in English as a second language in Arkansas. Take
one and learn to read.
\
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 15 05:23PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:17:25 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > Pure bullshit, no substance - YOU'RE STUMPED!!!!
 
> So why won't you take a stand?
 
> I told you, I'm making a logical proof.
 
There's nothing logical about your "proof" - there IS NO proof. I asked for evidence and you CAN'T provide it. You're STUMPED!
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 15 05:28PM -0700


>> So why won't you take a stand?
 
>> I told you, I'm making a logical proof.
 
> There's nothing logical about your "proof" - there IS NO proof. I asked for evidence and you CAN'T provide it. You're STUMPED!
 
In which case, why are you so reluctant to answer?
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 15 04:59PM -0700

"Mike Pence, currently Vice-President of the United States of America,
has hired independent counsel to help him weather the dark cloud that is
the 'Russian election hacking collusion/obstruction of justice/Russian
cash for sanctions' investigation."
 
<http://boingboing.net/2017/06/15/pence-laywers-up.html>
 
'The vice president's office said Pence's decision to retain Cullen
underscores his desire to fully cooperate with any inquiries related to
the Russia probe and is in line with what Trump has done in hiring Kasowitz.
 
Kasowitz has told some White House personnel that they do not need to
hire their own lawyers, according to one person familiar with some of
the legal discussions that have occurred inside the White House. But
Pence's move to hire an outside attorney could set off a scramble among
other West Wing aides — many of whom are already bracing for subpoenas —
to do the same, even if only as a protective measure.'
 
Kasowitz: "Trust Trump! You don't need a lawyer!"
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 15 04:36PM -0700

...so why do you still deny it, wingnuts?
 
'The U.S. Senate voted nearly unanimously on Thursday for legislation to
impose new sanctions on Russia and force President Donald Trump to get
Congress' approval before easing any existing sanctions on Russia.
 
In a move that could complicate U.S. President Donald Trump's desire for
warmer relations with Moscow, the Senate backed the measure by 98-2.
Republican Senator Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, an independent who
caucuses with the Democrats, were the only two "no" votes.
 
The measure is intended to punish Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S.
election, its annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region and support for
Syria's government in the six-year-long civil war.'
 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sanctions-idUSKBN1962AU>
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: Jun 15 05:53PM -0400

On 06/15/2017 05:12 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
 
>> Don't believe me...check what Dershowitz, a fellow liberal, has to say
>> about the matter.
 
> Has Dershowitz been show all the evidence?
 
Well no, but at least he got some press out of it.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 15 07:18AM -0700

Yes.
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