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

Monday, June 19, 2017

MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jun 19 08:13AM -0500

John B. wrote:
 
>> Did you read the entire set of tweets?
 
>> I just posted the conclusion.
 
> I just read the whole string of them and they don't prove anything.
 
So idiot Baker is now using Twitter as PROOF instead of Boingboing, LOL!
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 19 10:08AM -0500

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 08:54:07 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>> So idiot Baker is now using Twitter as PROOF instead of Boingboing, LOL!
 
>Democrat Adam Schiff said Sunday there was no evidence of
> collusion and he has seen the evidence.
 
Then the investigation has been called off?
 
NO.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 19 10:22AM -0500

>> collusion and he has seen the evidence.
 
>Then the investigation has been called off?
 
>NO.
 
Because collusion by Trump isn't the reason for the investigation
His minions are.
However he is being investigated for obstruction, and that's ongoing.
Laughable that righties here think that the Dems are the only ones
pushing the investigation. Even Rubio (and others) have stated that
it should go on because any findings one way or the other will be
what the country needs....cloture.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 19 09:14AM -0700

> > collusion and he has seen the evidence.
 
> Then the investigation has been called off?
 
> NO.
 
Did Schiff say he had seen the evidence compiled so far by Mueller's
investigators? Answer: No.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 19 09:36AM -0700

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
 
> > NO.
 
> Did Schiff say he had seen the evidence compiled so far by
> Mueller's investigators? Answer: No.
 
 
Overall, there's been a lot of statements made, which has
lead to the public generally becoming confused, and thus,
less interested.
 
And there's been statements made which simply do not
lead to the logical conclusion that is being claimed.
 
For example, one I heard this past weekend (paraphrased)
was to the effect of:
 
Trump isn't (and can't be) under investigation because
Trump has not been notified that he's under investigation.
 
In simplest form, this construct is trying to claim that
an absence of evidence is evidence of absence ... even
though this has been known as a logical fallacy for decades:
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance>
 
Hence, the term, "Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence":
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence>
 
..a term which was brought back into broader public awareness
with the Fleischmann & Pons "Cold Fusion" claims in 1989.
 
 
-hh
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 19 10:52AM -0700

On 2017-06-19 6:13 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
>>> I just posted the conclusion.
 
>> I just read the whole string of them and they don't prove anything.
 
> So idiot Baker is now using Twitter as PROOF instead of Boingboing, LOL!
 
I'm not using it as "proof" of anything.
 
It's an essay that for some reason the author has written out as a bunch
of tweets. The medium doesn't change what was said.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 19 10:52AM -0700

On 2017-06-19 6:54 AM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> So idiot Baker is now using Twitter as PROOF instead of Boingboing, LOL!
 
> Democrat Adam Schiff said Sunday there was no evidence of
> collusion and he has seen the evidence.
 
Quote and link, please.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 19 10:59AM -0700

On 2017-06-19 6:54 AM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> So idiot Baker is now using Twitter as PROOF instead of Boingboing, LOL!
 
> Democrat Adam Schiff said Sunday there was no evidence of
> collusion and he has seen the evidence.
 
I just checked.
 
He said precisely the opposite:
 
'Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said
Sunday he thinks that there is evidence of collusion and obstruction in
the panel's Russia investigation.
 
"I think there is evidence" of collusion, Schiff told ABC's "This Week."'
 
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/18/schiff-suggests-evidence-obstruction-in-russia-probe.html>
 
'"I'm not prepared to say that there's proof you could take to a jury,"
Schiff said Sunday. "But I can say that there is enough that we ought to
be investigating."'
 
Ooops.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 19 11:50AM -0700

On 2017-06-19 11:47 AM, Moderate wrote:
>> be investigating.?'
 
>> Ooops.
 
> Is not the opposite. "No proof to take to a jury."
 
"No proof to take to a jury" is not "no evidence".
 
He specifically said there IS evidence.
 
So you were lying or duped by Infowars...
 
...I'll let you pick.
 
:-)
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 19 06:58AM -0500


>> http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-lin
>> king-him-to-russia/
 
> And you think that those phone calls were all of it?
 
Absolutely.
 
> can be to this?
 
> If it were, why would it even be necessary for Trump to have asked Comey
> to let Flynn off?
 
I already told you, did you forget?
You never did read Comey's
testimony did you?
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 19 08:54AM -0500

> John B. wrote:
 
>> I just read the whole string of them and they don't prove anything.
 
> So idiot Baker is now using Twitter as PROOF instead of Boingboing, LOL!
 
Democrat Adam Schiff said Sunday there was no evidence of
collusion and he has seen the evidence.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 19 10:58AM -0500

> pushing the investigation. Even Rubio (and others) have stated that
> it should go on because any findings one way or the other will be
> what the country needs....cloture.
 
They should certainly investigate Russian hacking. They obviously
cleared Trump's people.
 
It would be hard to obstruct an investigation that cleared everyone.
 
The leftist and some Republicans who supported this cold coup have
burned their bridges and are stuck.
F'ing idiots.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 19 11:08AM -0500

> would you come in an hour early? Let's note for the record that Comey
> didn't do what Trump said he hoped he would do and the next thing
> he knew he was fired.
 
In your hypothetically a reasonable person would not just sleep
in. They either tell the boss they have a conflict and can't come
in early or show up.
 
Another hypothetical:
 
The media reports the boss is stealing money from his company.
The comptroller knows that is not true, but refuses to tell the
media. The next thing he knows he is fired.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 19 12:31PM -0500


>> NO.
 
> Did Schiff say he had seen the evidence compiled so far by Mueller's
> investigators? Answer: No.
 
The party of NO.
 
I noticed that we never hear what was colluded, the impact of
collusion, how it occurred.
 
The obvious reason is that someone would look at it and find nothing.
 
The Democrat leadership knows there was no collusion, but they
want to keep the mush brain followers distracted so they won't
notice the leadership is avoiding the arena of ideas. They are
inept, they don't do anything that benefits the country and the
mush heads don't even notice.
 
 
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 19 01:47PM -0500

> Schiff said Sunday. ?But I can say that there is enough that we ought to
> be investigating.?'
 
> Ooops.
 
Is not the opposite. "No proof to take to a jury."
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jun 19 01:47PM -0500

>> media. The next thing he knows he is fired.
 
> Very poor hypotheses. He wasn't asked to tell the media.Neither was
> Comey.
 
Horse shit.
--
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: Jun 19 08:24AM -0400

On 06/19/2017 01:42 AM, Dene wrote:
>> during his dealings with Comey's firing.
 
> "I hope" is not obstruction. But the Dems and their presstitutes are
> free to keep hoping.
 
The first rule of the propagandist is to accuse the enemy of one's own sins.
"Willie Brennan" <bbren@aol.com>: Jun 19 09:27AM -0400

"Dene" wrote in message news:oi7o13$oa5$1@dont-email.me...
 
>to keep hoping.
 
> I hope you've paid attention to this.
 
>Pretty hard to miss the smoke.
 
Interesting how most of the traffic on this thread is from the two Shit
Stains!
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 19 07:26AM -0700

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 1:42:25 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> free to keep hoping.
 
> > I hope you've paid attention to this.
 
> Pretty hard to miss the smoke.
 
Suppose your boss said to you, "Greg, I hope you will come in an hour
early tomorrow." Would you consider that an optional suggestion or
would you come in an hour early? Let's note for the record that Comey
didn't do what Trump said he hoped he would do and the next thing
he knew he was fired.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 19 07:27AM -0700

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 9:27:20 AM UTC-4, Willie Brennan wrote:
 
> >Pretty hard to miss the smoke.
 
> Interesting how most of the traffic on this thread is from the two Shit
> Stains!
 
You and who else?
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jun 19 07:41AM -0700

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 10:26:28 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> would you come in an hour early? Let's note for the record that Comey
> didn't do what Trump said he hoped he would do and the next thing
> he knew he was fired.
 
And, let's add that he shooed his attorney general, chief of staff,
and son in law out of the room before he expressed his "hope" to
Comey. And that he lied about why he had fired him.
"Willie Brennan" <bbren@aol.com>: Jun 19 10:55AM -0400

"John B." wrote in message
news:966d3ec7-a424-418e-bd0c-5a7649cdee66@googlegroups.com...
 
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 9:27:20 AM UTC-4, Willie Brennan wrote:
 
> Interesting how most of the traffic on this thread is from the two Shit
> Stains!
 
>You and who else?
 
Well, now you. So it's now three Shit Stains.
 
Advise: try not to lead with your chin, Shit Stain.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 19 12:22PM -0500

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:08:18 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>In your hypothetically a reasonable person would not just sleep
> in. They either tell the boss they have a conflict and can't come
> in early or show up.
 
Either way he knows that the boss wants it done.
 
>The media reports the boss is stealing money from his company.
> The comptroller knows that is not true, but refuses to tell the
> media. The next thing he knows he is fired.
 
Very poor hypotheses. He wasn't asked to tell the media.Neither was
Comey.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 19 10:50AM -0700

On 2017-06-19 4:58 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>> king-him-to-russia/
 
>> And you think that those phone calls were all of it?
 
> Absolutely.
 
Why?
 
 
>> If it were, why would it even be necessary for Trump to have asked Comey
>> to let Flynn off?
 
> I already told you, did you forget?
 
I don't believe you have, so no, I didn't forget what I haven't been told.
 
> You never did read Comey's
> testimony did you?
 
You never did quote the passages you claimed were important...
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 19 10:15AM -0700

An interesting read...
 
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-polarization-is-asymmetric-and-conservatives-are-worse/373044/>
 
 
-hh
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