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

Saturday, July 8, 2017

BK@Onramp.net: Jul 08 06:39PM -0500

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/30/senate-democrat-blasts-obamaphone-over-fraudulent-findings-complete-lack-oversight.html
 
Wingnuts are always bitching about falsehoods and incorrect inferences
by the major networks. This story is about cell phones that are given
by the government to low income people to give them communication
help.
 
The problem is that calling it Obamaphone is dead assed wrong since
the program began during the Reagan administration. But Fox can get
some jabs at Obama in by falsely using his name.
 
I don't think that CNN has done anything that low.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jul 08 04:51PM -0700

> the program began during the Reagan administration. But Fox can get
> some jabs at Obama in by falsely using his name.
 
> I don't think that CNN has done anything that low.
 
Fox News and the Washington Times. Two peas in a pod.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Jul 08 06:48PM -0500

> the program began during the Reagan administration. But Fox can get
> some jabs at Obama in by falsely using his name.
 
> I don't think that CNN has done anything that low.
 
https://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio
--
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jul 08 11:13AM -0700

On 2017-07-07 3:54 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Loretta Lynch colluded with Clinton campaign to stall the FBI
> investigation.
 
> http://tinyurl.com/y9r6edtt
 
Weird how in this case you're more concerned about the alleged collusion
and not concerned about the leaking at all, huh?
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jul 08 11:24AM -0700

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > http://tinyurl.com/y9r6edtt
 
> Weird how in this case you're more concerned about the alleged collusion
> and not concerned about the leaking at all, huh?
 
This story isn't based on leaks as far as I can tell.
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jul 08 11:38AM -0700

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:13:36 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > http://tinyurl.com/y9r6edtt
 
> Weird how in this case you're more concerned about the alleged collusion
> and not concerned about the leaking at all, huh?
 
Weird how you ALWAYS deflect when hard evidence of unethical and illegal behavior by the Obama administration comes up.
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jul 08 07:22PM

Moderate wrote:
 
> Loretta Lynch colluded with Clinton campaign to stall the FBI
> investigation.
 
> http://tinyurl.com/y9r6edtt
 
Of course you don't take any notice of this FAKE news (by your
definition) because the NY Post don't meet your criteria of actually
having the evidence... just reports that it exists.
 
Moderate: "I think they should have some evidence before they publish
lies that there is evidence of collusion."
 
When you're not digging holes you're jumping in them.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jul 08 02:18PM -0700

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:25:57 PM UTC-4, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
 
> Moderate: "I think they should have some evidence before they publish
> lies that there is evidence of collusion."
 
> When you're not digging holes you're jumping in them.
 
Here's a little collusion for you: On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr.,
Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer connected to
the Kremlin.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jul 08 02:38PM -0700

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 5:18:32 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer connected to
> the Kremlin.
 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 
BTW, this meeting was not disclosed by anyone until the Times
found out about it.
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jul 08 11:44AM -0700

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 1:07:16 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > It is publically available. Are you that unresourceful?
 
> Apparently you are.
 
> Since it's your claim and yet you can't produce it.
 
Go read the executive order: it's in the FIRST sentence.
BK@Onramp.net: Jul 08 03:14PM -0500


<clip your extraneous bullshit>
An executive order is not a law. Period, end of question.
Don't you get tired of being dead-assed wrong? It's the only thing
you seem to be good at though.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jul 08 11:02AM -0700


>> I haven't made a personal attack.
 
>> I've stated a logical and correct position.
 
> Yes, you did.
 
Nope.
 
"you're lying" is not a personal attack.
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jul 08 11:39AM -0700

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:02:30 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > Yes, you did.
 
> Nope.
 
> "you're lying" is not a personal attack.
 
I decide what is personal to me, NOT you!
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jul 08 07:34PM


> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:02:30 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > "you're lying" is not a personal attack.
 
> I decide what is personal to me, NOT you!
 
You're upset you got caught in a lie, that's understandable but it
doesn't gain you sensitivity rights.
 
It is however a good distraction technique; well done it's working.
Just don't let on to Alan.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jul 08 07:26AM -0700

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:10:54 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> economists generally agree that supply follows demand, and excess supply
> leads to supply gluts and not more demand.'
 
> <https://mic.com/articles/181603/rick-perry-has-no-idea-how-economics-works>
 
Wow, that is genuinely stupid.
BK@Onramp.net: Jul 08 12:38PM -0500

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 07:26:16 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>> leads to supply gluts and not more demand.'
 
>> <https://mic.com/articles/181603/rick-perry-has-no-idea-how-economics-works>
 
>Wow, that is genuinely stupid.
 
Yep, Rick Perry needs instructions to pour piss out of a boot.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jul 08 10:08AM -0700

Appalled, sure...
 
...but not shocked:
 
'REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS BUY HEALTH INSURANCE STOCKS AS REPEAL EFFORT MOVES
FORWARD
 
JUST AS THE HOUSE Republican bill to slash much of the Affordable Care
Act moved forward, Rep. Mike Conaway, a Texas Republican and member of
Speaker Paul Ryan's leadership team, added a health insurance company to
his portfolio.
 
An account owned by Conaway's wife made two purchases of UnitedHealth
stock, worth as much as $30,000, on March 24th, the day the legislation
advanced in the House Rules Committee, according to disclosures. The
exact value of Conaway's investment isn't clear, given that
congressional ethics forms only show a range of amounts, and Conaway's
office did not respond to a request for comment.
 
He wasn't the only one. As the health care system overhaul advanced last
month on the other side of Capitol Hill, Republican Sen. James Inhofe of
Oklahoma purchased between $50,000 to $100,000 in UnitedHealth stock.
 
"Sen. Inhofe has a financial advisor who makes transactions on his
behalf and these transactions are disclosed as required by the STOCK
Act," Nicole Hage, Inhofe's spokesperson, told The Intercept. "The
transaction you reference was routine and made without the Senator's
prior knowledge or consultation."'
 
Riiiiight.
 
<https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/republican-lawmakers-buy-health-insurance-stocks-as-repeal-effort-moves-forward/>
 
'The issue of insider political trading, with members and staff buying
and selling stock using privileged information, has continued to plague
Congress. It gained national prominence during the confirmation hearings
for Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, when it was revealed
that the Georgia Republican had bought shares in Innate
Immunotherapeutics, a relatively obscure Australian biotechnology firm,
while legislating on policies that could have impacted the firm's
performance.
 
The stock advice had been passed to Price from Rep. Chris Collins,
R-N.Y., a board member for Innate Immunotherapeutics, and was shared
with a number of other GOP lawmakers, who also invested in the firm.
Conaway, records show, bought shares in the company a week after Price.
 
Conaway, who serves as a GOP deputy whip in the House, has a long record
of investing in firms that coincide with his official duties. Politico
reported that Conaway's wife purchased stock in a nuclear firm just
after Conaway sponsored a bill to deal with nuclear waste storage in his
district. The firm stood to directly benefit from the legislation.'
 
And this:
 
'Congress eventually acted with the STOCK Act, legislation designed to
curb insider trading abuses. But the law was quickly watered down with
amendments, and some provisions of it were later repealed. As we've
reported, the House of Representatives has actively fought efforts to
enforce the law after the Securities and Exchange Commission attempted
to investigate one congressional staffer accused of passing health care
information to a set of hedge funds.'
BK@Onramp.net: Jul 08 08:54AM -0500

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:04:35 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>>>Bwaahaahaa.
 
>> Which means; I've been nailed again.
 
>You are the nailer.
 
But this time it was someone else.
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jul 08 11:57AM

Moderate wrote:
 
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jul 08 12:06PM

Moderate wrote:
 
 
> > When you are ready...
 
> Do you think using a lot of words that avoid the topic is a good
> debate technique?
 
No, but nice try.
 
Waiting...
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jul 08 12:16PM

Moderate wrote:
 
> > His friends in the banking business will be happy but the rest of us
> > won't
 
> Liar!
 
Do you think using a single inapproriate word will distract people from
the fact that you are yet to support a single word of your claims?
 
I'll add that it is beyond ignorant to call someone a liar when they
have only given opinion about future events... which rather proves my
point above.
 
You on the other hand have made factual claims that you have yet to
verify in any form.
 
Do you think it unreasonable to ask someone, especially someone who has
a rather casual relationship with the truth, to verify thier assertions?
 
Waiting...
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jul 08 12:34PM

Dene wrote:
 
> Wow!
 
> > And Trump's?
 
> Here is a list of XO's
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/28/list-trumps-executive-orders.html
 
So you think ALL his XO's are worthwhile? Well there's no point in
asking what you think of his tweets, clearly the guy can't put a foot
wrong as far as you are concerned.
 
 
 
> He pulled us out of the Paris accords and the Asian trade agreement.
 
> Plus he's been dealing with all the crap that Obama kicked down the
> road.. And calling out CNN for their hypocrisy and dishonesty.
 
Which of all those has had a defintive and verified positive affect for
the USA or in general.
 
I don't even recognise your claims regarding critical legislastion.
 
What legislation has passed into law and what is the approval like for
it?
 
Trump tends to tweet every time he farts without shitting himself. I'm
sure that if there had been a significant piece of legislation passed
into law I'd have picked up on it somewhere.
BK@Onramp.net: Jul 08 08:47AM -0500

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 21:53:41 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> LOL. Coming from you that's high praise.
 
>Great self respect for yourself.
 
>Nobody doubts that.
 
Everyone should have great respect for themselves. It shows that you
don't.
BK@Onramp.net: Jul 08 08:50AM -0500

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:01:29 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>
wrote:
 
>> You obviously think that posting outright foolishness is a good debate
>> technique.
 
>Liar!
 
It's an indisputable truth.
BK@Onramp.net: Jul 08 08:52AM -0500

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:01:51 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>
wrote:
 
>> His friends in the banking business will be happy but the rest of us
>> won't
 
>Liar!
 
You need to go back and finish the sixth grade. An opinion is never a
lie.
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