rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com
Google Groups
Topic digest
View all topics
Nobody beats Marin Cilic 15 times in a row! - 8 Updates
OT: TT - 11 Updates
Who Are Donald Trump's Supporters? - 3 Updates
Putin on US election and "favoritism" - 2 Updates
Jimmy Dore Show - Obamacare Rate Hikes Show Why Hillary's Down & Trump's Up - 1 Update
Nobody beats Marin Cilic 15 times in a row!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:09PM -0400
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:21:39 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> at a DNC party. i find him arrogant, so cheered rafa. doesn't say
>> anything about fed's accomplishments, he won 17 slams, is what it is.
>Federer & Rafa are both toast now, so it feels like it matters a lot less than a few years ago.
i think rafa's going to retire in 2017. fed, not sure, he might hang
around slightly longer. but i'd like to see serena, fed and rafa all
bow out next year. it's time.
>> level to which the establishment would fight back, though i did say
>> 18mos ago they wouldn't go down without brass knuckles.
>When Obama got the green light, it was a given that Hillary was next in the queue. As for screwing up, Clintons are beyond teflon level. Trump said he could kill someone on the street and not hurt his chances. Hillary could probably commit genocide.
if she gets enough votes to win this week after her record while 30yrs
in the limelight, few yrs as senator and secretary, then dupont will
have to admit to inventing teflon's new and improved successor.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:10PM -0400
>You're extremely biased. There isn't even a comparison what Hillary and
>Trump have done. You have never had such low a candidate as Trump in
>every way possible.
and you couldn't care less what it means to the united states, you,
max and court1 only care how it affects finland, germany anbd moose
jaw.
bob
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Nov 04 06:16PM -0700
On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 4:03:53 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 12:36:59 PM UTC-7, RaspingDrive wrote:
> > What adjective does Trump use before Hillary's name? What is its antonym?
> What are you even going on about? You're talking about when we were calling each other queers? That's like a 0.5 on the Richter scale of squabbles I've had on RST. Most of the disagreements I've had with bob had to do with him disparaging Federer or allying himself with Whisper over any number of things. None of it added up to being serious adversaries. We agree on some things and disagree on others.
Not serious adversaries. Started off as somewhat adversarial, confrontational, so you were adversaries to begin with.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Nov 04 06:26PM -0700
On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 6:21:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > everyone can see a joke. in fact i think gracchus said something funny
> > back, don't recall.
> Have to remember that RD comes from a tribal culture where people start blood feuds and cut each others children to ribbons with scimitars over exchanges like that. Probably doesn't understand that Americans trash talk even their friends sometimes and hit reset next time they see one another.
What virulence! I come from the same culture as some Abel Prize, Nobel Prize winners in math and sciences. And the same culture as Genius Ramanujan. We only use knives to cut vegetables. By the way, not used to owning guns either. Eschew drinking and violence. A very soft culture much committed to brilliance in academics. Just clarifying.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Nov 04 06:33PM -0700
On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 5:55:11 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> mentality, repeating the same nonsensical arguments and criticisms,
> that have no basis in fact, i don't respect that. but he or SHE can
> always change.
Courty probably brings the worst in you. And vice versa. Personally, you two have been great to discuss.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:56PM -0400
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 18:26:56 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> > back, don't recall.
>> Have to remember that RD comes from a tribal culture where people start blood feuds and cut each others children to ribbons with scimitars over exchanges like that. Probably doesn't understand that Americans trash talk even their friends sometimes and hit reset next time they see one another.
>What virulence! I come from the same culture as some Abel Prize, Nobel Prize winners in math and sciences. And the same culture as Genius Ramanujan. We only use knives to cut vegetables. By the way, not used to owning guns either. Eschew drinking and violence. A very soft culture much committed to brilliance in academics. Just clarifying.
listen RD, quit flirting with me. you're not my type.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:58PM -0400
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 18:33:25 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> that have no basis in fact, i don't respect that. but he or SHE can
>> always change.
>Courty probably brings the worst in you. And vice versa. Personally, you two have been great to discuss.
glad you enjoy it. as for courty, i think the same of her today as a
few yrs ago: she can't think logically. it's tough to argue with
someone like that.
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Nov 04 07:56PM -0700
On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 12:31:38 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > People will see nothing really changed? Which "people" are you referring to?
> I'm referring to the American people. Not necessarily citizens of our irrelevant North American neighbors. ;)
You mean these type of elegant "people?"
http://cdn.freakoutnation.com/uploads/2016/02/Trump-supporters.jpg
Fascinating! *rolls eyes*
> > And are you a clairvoyant? ;)
> Does one need clairvoyance to predict that a zebra won't be born with leopard spots? I've had 25 years to observe the Clintons.
I guess by "change" you mean you would want a child rapist at the helm? ;)
> > >Just an extension of the status quo and another Clinton in office.
> > You talk like the status quo is some type of disease. Not everybody thinks the way you do about the 'evil' status quo.
> Disease is an apt analogy. A slow, degenerative one.
It won't likely change in your lifetime so I guess you'll have to get used to it?
> > >There may be symbolic value in a woman becoming president, but keep in mind that her performance will end up being unfairly generalized as what "a woman president" does. Leave it then for women to decide in a year or two if Hillary Clinton is really the woman they want representing them. IMO it's just another snow job on the public.
> > I think she'll be and do just fine.
> If "fine" means Bill Clinton Term III, perhaps. I don't expect to see a scrap of "the most progressive Democratic platform ever" that Michael Moore prattles about.
Would you be more content with Trump's platforms? Do you think HE would the savior for the middle class? Ha ha ha!
Back to top
OT: TT
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:23PM -0400
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 20:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> > got CAUGHT. i can't imagine those that didn't (yet).
>> Court 1 is fond of saying, "where there's smoke there's fire." But apparently it takes a whole different threshold of smoke for the Clintons...something akin to a Krakatoa eruption before they or their allies have done wrong. That blessed couple gets separate rules for just about everything.
>Except I never said the Clintons are innocent and don't play dirty. I simply said private email discussions don't equate to sabotage.
but they certainly can, depending on what the emails SAY. i thought i
explained this yesteday?
it's as if saying a silly tape recording doesn't equate to a murder,
yet if that recording is of someone confessing to murder, describing
where the body is, and telling where the gun is buried - um, well,
it's "just a silly tape recording," it's not an actual murder, no?
> Furthermore, I said you seem to have a serious bias in that you bring up every time the Clintons sneeze and claim it's dirty behavior but you say zip about Trump and his dirty antics.
maybe cause trump has never run for or held public office.
> In fact you never really criticize Trump about anything other than to say you don't support him. Where's the outcry about his alleged sexual predatory behavior including his alleged rape of a 13 year old girl(where there are two direct witnesses allegedly.) Not a peep out of you on that. For a person who claims he hates both candidates equally, your comments certainly don't support that claim.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:24PM -0400
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> Get over it, Berniebro.
>> Besides it's not Clinton's fault ffs.
>Yeah, like Luca Brasi's work wasn't the Corleones' fault.
wonder how man of clinton's enemies swim with the fishes either
literally or metaphorically.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:27PM -0400
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 20:35:12 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> Ok, looking at it piece-by-piece:
>> 1. Those "private" e-mails show that people at the higher levels of the Democratic Party were having serious discussions about how to sabotage a candidate running with that party to give their preferred candidate (more) advantage. So they weren't just innocuous little communiques that prying eyes shouldn't have looked at, as your wording suggests.
>Serious discussions in private emails about how to sabotage a candidate are one thing but proving that those private discussions actually sabotaged election results is quite another thing.
we know for a FACT that it had some effect. if it had enough to turn
the election nobody will ever know. the man won 23 states coming from
virtual anonymity until at least 8 states voted (all clinton).
besides, it's as if rafa cheated in a match, won, and you said no
matter he was going to win anyway. yes, it actually does matter.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:32PM -0400
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 20:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> strategized for 1 candidate. all the while they were presumably for
>> "nobody" just a mediator in the process.
>With those emails the DNC showed it wasn't neutral but that doesn't prove that their email discussions on how to sabotage Bernie actually resulted in less votes for Bernie.
but how could it not?
>> press to the saudis, no problem. btw, do they have the acct # for
>> donations to my foundation?" hmmmmmmm.
>We'll have to see how it all turns out in the end. It'll probably turn out to be a big nothing and won't harm Clinton.
it may not harm clinton, but the fact you don't get the point
litterally exasperates me. i'm literally shocked at your line of
thought, once again.
>> things that were DONE to influence it. my gosh. i'll refraid from
>> saying you have comprehension problems.
>Talking about ways to sabotage Bernie in private email discussions i.e. by highlighting Bernie's alleged atheism for example doesn't equate to actual sabotage you trailer park piece of trash!
oh my. kind of hard to respond to you when you think that this doesn't
equate to sabotage. what can i say to you?
>> take your red commie arse outa here gracchus!???
>Bernie lost because his politics could only go so far in the America of today. I know it pains you but it's the truth.
i don't care why he lost, as long as the game was fair. it wasn't. 2
occasions we know of now. how many more do we NOT know of that exist?
dozen? more?
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:34PM -0400
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:09:28 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>Aw hell, forget that no one here claimed the e-mails (those cute little ones plotting sabotage) were responsible. If it feels good to parrot the same lie ad infinitum like mammoth-ass Madame Hillary, do continue! :)
>> but Trump's connection with Russia and his planting of Wikileaks and the no doubt ensuing loss of votes for Clinton is fine and dandy.
>Yep, shady people exposed undisputed truths about corruption in the Democratic Party, so we should ignore those truths and vote for a corrupt candidate so the shady people won't be happy. Airtight logic on that one. Thanks for clearing it all up.
that's exactly the logic being used.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:40PM -0400
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:21:45 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> > Private emails are bad and were the sole reason for Bernie's loss(it couldn't be Bernie's politics after all)
>> Aw hell, forget that no one here claimed the e-mails (those cute little ones plotting sabotage) were responsible.
>Bob certainly did, what are you talking about? You implied it as well many times.
the hell i did you liar. i never said any such thing. what i said is
it was cheating and it definitely influenced the primary, whether it
would've gone the other way or not.
>> If it feels good to parrot the same lie ad infinitum like mammoth-ass Madame Hillary, do continue! :)
>Check the archives. I'm not lying.
yes, please check them. you lie even when the truth would serve you
better. as they say about hillary in arkansas.
>> > but Trump's connection with Russia and his planting of Wikileaks and the no doubt ensuing loss of votes for Clinton is fine and dandy.
>> Yep, shady people exposed undisputed truths about corruption in the Democratic Party, so we should ignore those truths and vote for a corrupt candidate so the shady people won't be happy. Airtight logic on that one. Thanks for clearing it all up.
>But you ARE ignoring the corruption in the Republican party!
gracchus made it clear that (1) gw bush was a bum and he was happy to
see the whole bush family go down this year and (2) he didn't vote for
trump. wtf do you want?
> You admitted yourself that you prefer Trump over Clinton and every single one of yours posts in the past six months have shown your bias very clearly. And again, private emails between DNC members showed impartiality not activity which influenced votes. The Wikileak issue (a Trump-Putin production) will clearly cost Clinton votes. I don't hear you bitching about that?
you're a sad case courty. maybe one of those wacky clowns can cheer
you up.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:45PM -0400
>Ha-ha.
>As you think Clinton is so evil then how come there really wasn't
>anything in 20 thousand emails or so...
says who?
>It's sort of like Podesta emails, very boring - the guy is an angel.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:47PM -0400
>>> Sanders was good enough to shake things up but not good enough to win. Deal with it. The second he said the words "Democratic Socialist" he was finished.
>> So he could have won if he hadn't said those words? Is that what you're saying? Or would he have won 27-30 states instead of the 23 he won through people that weren't spooked by those words?
>Brazile was sacked from CNN.
who cares, the damage was done.
>I understand she gave ONE question (death penalty), and Bernie didn't
>take part it that "debate". It's not really a big deal to give questions
>beforehand, many progs do that. Of course she shouldn't have done it.
you only know she gave 1 question. you have no idea when caught
cheating how many other times you did but weren't caught.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:52PM -0400
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:28:35 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 3:57:26 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> Brazile was sacked from CNN.
>And still a valued member of the Democratic Party. That says something.
no foolin.
> Plus, CNN hasn't bothered to find out who gave Brazile the question in the first place, so they apparently don't care how far the rot goes.
for sure.
>> beforehand, many progs do that. Of course she shouldn't have done it.
>Sounds like the old defense when cheats get caught during a exam: "It was just ONE question and LOTS of people do it." Nice try, but usually they still fail.
>IMO it's an slippery practice even when a show gives both candidates questions before a debate/Town Hall. In this case, a whole different story. Brazile got hold of the question surreptitiously and directed it to one candidate for obvious reasons. That's going way beyond slippery.
gracchus, we only know of what we found. but when you're dirty, it
goes way deeper.
"oh, it was only cause i had a cold this week, i took that ped. i
normally never do it." sure.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:53PM -0400
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:26:21 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>> IMO it's an slippery practice even when a show gives both candidates questions before a debate/Town Hall. In this case, a whole different story. Brazile got hold of the question surreptitiously and directed it to one candidate for obvious reasons. That's going way beyond slippery.
>Big fucking deal.
could you ask your papa for a loan and buy some class?
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:54PM -0400
>>> cheat? um, yep.
>> this is the real question, it's like why is Trump able to match Hillary in the polls despite everything.
>Well GOP propaganda machine is rather effective...
GOP hates trump. you need to catch up.
bob
Back to top
Who Are Donald Trump's Supporters?
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:15PM -0400
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 22:03:45 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> Personally I soured on Moore's films early. IMO that documentary style (not just showcasing an issue, but telling viewers what to think about it) insults the audience same as he's doing here. Mike, your unsolicited opinion is noted. Now go have another Happy Meal or five courtesy of the Clintons.
>If Moore said he supported Trump rather than Clinton would you be so critical of him? Based on most of your posts I doubt it. As I said before, you claim to detest Trump and Clinton equally but your posts tell a different story.
>And don't worry,that fat obnoxious cow Moore will have many Happy Meals whether they are courtesy of Clinton or not.
do you hate him cause he's fat and obnoxious or because he wants
working wages for working folks, i.e. the folks your daddy pays?
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:17PM -0400
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 22:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>Ok, maybe it's 52% Hillary, 48% Trump. Anyway, if Moore ever supported Trump, I'd be sure the Apocalypse was coming soon (some people say it already is because the Cubs won the World Series).
>> And don't worry,that fat obnoxious cow Moore will have many Happy Meals whether they are courtesy of Clinton or not.
>I'm sure that's so. He was actually going on talk shows a couple of years ago saying he'd gone vegetarian or at least had switched to a healthy diet. Yah.
he did. he lost some weight temporarily, and looked terrible.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:18PM -0400
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:20:12 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg
>> If Moore said he supported Trump rather than Clinton would you be so critical of him? Based on most of your posts I doubt it. As I said before, you claim to detest Trump and Clinton equally but your posts tell a different story.
>> And don't worry,that fat obnoxious cow Moore will have many Happy Meals whether they are courtesy of Clinton or not.
>how come you don't mind calling MM fat, yet you were upset that Trump said it about some women?
you didn't get the memo: it's ok to call white men all kinds of names,
fat, bald, obnoxious, pigs to name a few. but say a woman looks 50yo,
and whoa nelly!
bob
Back to top
Putin on US election and "favoritism"
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:14PM -0400
>Okay...bob. Lemme check...
>Yeah, it's still RST.
>Anything else you want to ask?
no, kind sir, you answered it promptly.
you said you would not prefer to remain eternal enemies with russia.
as for me, when i try to get a grip on the money spent in the past 75
years keeping russia "at bay" it's probably enough to put every kid in
college, give every citizen health insurance, build a bunch of new
roads and trains along the way - kinda like germany and japan have,
no?
so when we can put an end to that nonsense, i'd have to say i'm all
for it.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 04 09:14PM -0400
>> just curious. some people think we should.
>> bob
>Putin is hardly giving you reason for friendship...
i wasn't talking to you.
bob
Back to top
Jimmy Dore Show - Obamacare Rate Hikes Show Why Hillary's Down & Trump's Up
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Nov 05 02:34AM +0200
5.11.2016, 1:03, lo yeeOn kirjoitti:
> There is Obamacare for you. But you have to pay a certain premium
> they demand of you.
> Well, Obamacare rates are going up by an average of 24% next year.
This is misleading. Rises are compensated by subsidies and tax credits.
"85% of people with Obamacare policies are getting government subsidies
and tax credits that make the premiums more affordable."
So that means only the rich pay...
Besides, aren't many covered by their employee.
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear"
Back to top
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.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.