rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com
Google Groups
Topic digest
View all topics
Gee, wonder what they were hiding? - 3 Updates
Golden Glob of Goatshit - 17 Updates
Obama's latest job approval Gallup - 1 Update
OT: Who do American's trust? Not Trump. - 1 Update
OT: Obama preferred by more people... - 1 Update
Al Franken LIES at Sessions hearing!! - 2 Updates
Gee, wonder what they were hiding?
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jan 10 04:04PM -0600
I mean, why else would the deny the FBI access?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/10/comey-fbi-denied-repeated-requests-to-access-dnc-servers-podesta-s-device.html
But the FBI's repeated requests for access to the devices were denied.
So the agency instead had to rely on the findings of a "highly respected
private company," Comey said.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 02:07PM -0800
On 2017-01-10 2:04 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> But the FBI's repeated requests for access to the devices were denied.
> So the agency instead had to rely on the findings of a "highly respected
> private company," Comey said.
Can I please see everything on your personal computer?
If you deny me access...
...you must be hiding something.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jan 10 02:08PM -0800
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:04:21 PM UTC-8, MNMikeW wrote:
> But the FBI's repeated requests for access to the devices were denied.
> So the agency instead had to rely on the findings of a "highly respected
> private company," Comey said.
They deserved to get hacked. The RNC has safeguards. The DNC did not, due to their stupidity and arrogance.
-Greg
Back to top
Golden Glob of Goatshit
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jan 10 12:14PM -0800
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 11:30:40 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > -Greg
> A vote for Sanders was not a vote against Obama. Neither
> were the votes of the so-called Blue Wall Dems.
HRC and Obama's policies barely differed. A vote for Trump or Bernie was a vote against Obama.
-Greg
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 12:20PM -0800
On 2017-01-10 12:14 PM, Dene wrote:
>> were the votes of the so-called Blue Wall Dems.
> HRC and Obama's policies barely differed. A vote for Trump or Bernie was a vote against Obama.
> -Greg
That's bullshit, you know it's bullshit, but you say it anyway.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jan 10 02:46PM -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
>> was a vote against Obama.
>> -Greg
> That's bullshit, you know it's bullshit, but you say it anyway.
And yet, you don't say why it's bullshit. Crybaby.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 12:51PM -0800
On 2017-01-10 12:46 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> -Greg
>> That's bullshit, you know it's bullshit, but you say it anyway.
> And yet, you don't say why it's bullshit. Crybaby.
It's bullshit because whether you like it or not, there are reasons
people might not vote for Hillary where they would have voted for Obama.
It's bullshit because, as may have escaped your notice, Hillary WON the
popular vote.
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Jan 10 01:08PM -0800
Moderate wrote:
> > the Clinton years. The Republican Party in Congress has lurched
> > far to the right since then.
> Horse shit. Democrats have moved to the left.
Facts say that the Tea Party killed the moderate Republicans,
thereby creating the party's huge lurch to the Right. The
Tea Party's strategy was to attack moderate Republicans in
their Primaries. Case in point, here's a report from 2010:
"The Tea Party delivered fresh shocks to the Republican
establishment in a series of primary elections that
highlighted the apparent civil war being waged among US
conservatives....the Tea Party candidates in these other
states are further to the right. The Tea Party, a populist
movement that believes the Republican party has shifted to
the left, is intent on infiltrating the party in what
amounts to a takeover bid."
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/15/tea-party-republican-primary-victories>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_the_Tea_Party_movement>
Since the rise of the Tea Party, there's been probably more
incumbents who lost their seats in their own party's primary
to a TP challenger than to a Democrat in the general election.
> Clinton did not support gay marriage, ...
Bill or Hillary? Need cites to substantiate these claims.
For example, Hillary Clinton was criticized for being slow
in adopting the growing public sentiment:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/06/13/gross-misunderstanding-of-hillary-clinton-on-gay-marriage/>
...but she was gagged on commenting on domestic issues
while Secretary of State, and so, by the time that that
job was over, the public was polling at a 53% approval
rate, creating the criticism that she was failing to lead
on a progressive social issue:
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx>
-hh
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jan 10 01:15PM -0800
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 3:14:58 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> > were the votes of the so-called Blue Wall Dems.
> HRC and Obama's policies barely differed. A vote for Trump or Bernie was a vote against Obama.
> -Greg
Wow, that's quite a stretch.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jan 10 01:32PM -0800
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 1:15:40 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > HRC and Obama's policies barely differed. A vote for Trump or Bernie was a vote against Obama.
> > -Greg
> Wow, that's quite a stretch.
How so? Had the Bernie supporters or the Blue Wall Dems got behind HRC, she would be the next president. A primary reason they didn't support her. Her agenda was similar to Obama's.
Reagan's legacy elected George Bush. Clinton's legacy almost elected Gore. Obama's legacy did nothing for HRC. She lost the electoral by a significant margin.
Face it.
-Greg
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jan 10 01:34PM -0800
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 12:46:42 PM UTC-8, MNMikeW wrote:
> >> -Greg
> > That's bullshit, you know it's bullshit, but you say it anyway.
> And yet, you don't say why it's bullshit. Crybaby.
To do so would require that IT actually says something substantive. That's not what lying trolls do.
-Greg
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 01:37PM -0800
On 2017-01-10 1:32 PM, Dene wrote:
> Reagan's legacy elected George Bush. Clinton's legacy almost elected Gore. Obama's legacy did nothing for HRC. She lost the electoral by a significant margin.
> Face it.
> -Greg
She won the popular vote in an election that saw interference from a
foreign power.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 01:37PM -0800
On 2017-01-10 1:34 PM, Dene wrote:
>> And yet, you don't say why it's bullshit. Crybaby.
> To do so would require that IT actually says something substantive. That's not what lying trolls do.
> -Greg
Oops.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jan 10 03:40PM -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
>> -Greg
> She won the popular vote in an election that saw interference from a
> foreign power.
And she was a horseshit candidate. The election was not interfered with.
The DNC was.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jan 10 03:41PM -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
>> That's not what lying trolls do.
>> -Greg
> Oops.
About as substantive as little man gets.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 01:42PM -0800
On 2017-01-10 1:40 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> foreign power.
> And she was a horseshit candidate. The election was not interfered with.
> The DNC was.
And the DNC wasn't a factor in the election, Mikey?
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 01:44PM -0800
On 2017-01-10 1:41 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> -Greg
>> Oops.
> About as substantive as little man gets.
Deliberately ignoring my specific answers to your early post.
<o53hgl$81r$2@news.datemas.de>
I guess this is about as honest as YOU get, huh, Mikey?
:-)
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Jan 10 01:48PM -0800
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> Reagan's legacy elected George Bush. Clinton's legacy almost elected Gore. Obama's legacy did nothing for HRC. She lost the electoral by a significant margin.
> Face it.
> -Greg
She won 3m more popular votes than Trump, the biggest margin ever
for a presidential candidate who lost the Electoral College. I don't
know who the Blue Wall Dems are, or if they even exist. But the
huge majority of Sanders' supporters did support HRC. There are a
lot of reasons that she lost. Obama's agenda was certainly one
of them, but it was far from the only one.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jan 10 04:02PM -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
> <o53hgl$81r$2@news.datemas.de>
> I guess this is about as honest as YOU get, huh, Mikey?
> :-)
LOL! Moron.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 02:06PM -0800
On 2017-01-10 2:02 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> I guess this is about as honest as YOU get, huh, Mikey?
>> :-)
> LOL! Moron.
Is lying about people funny to you, Mikey?
Back to top
Obama's latest job approval Gallup
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Jan 10 01:33PM -0800
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 1:35:26 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> smaller number of voters wins a greater number of seats,
> you have effectively suppressed the votes of the greater
> number of voters.
Plus there's also been literal instances of voter suppression
...gosh, by Republicans, again! .. determined by the courts:
"'The new provisions target African Americans with almost
surgical precision' and 'impose cures for problems that did
not exist,' Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel.
'Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal
the [North Carolina] State's true motivation.'"
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html?utm_term=.ab6b4d45710a>
And it wasn't just one isolated Red State. Here's Wisconsin:
<http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/30/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-voter-id-early-voting-laws/87803408/>
Texas also lost on their ID case too; can't easily determine if
their appeal to the Supreme Court was accepted or denied. Overall,
the topic is notable enough to have its own Wiki page:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States>
-hh
Back to top
OT: Who do American's trust? Not Trump.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 01:26PM -0800
At least, not compared to his predecessor.
Sorry, I mean "predecessorS". Even Dubya gets better marks than Trump.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/201158/skeptical-trump-handle-presidential-duties.aspx?g_source=POLITICS&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles>
Back to top
OT: Obama preferred by more people...
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 01:10PM -0800
'A new poll from Quinnipiac University shows that over half of Americans
disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job of president-elect.
In the poll released by Quinnipiac today, 51 percent said they
disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president-elect compared to 37
percent who said they approve. Meanwhile, this same poll shows that 55
percent of Americans approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing.
This comes one month after a Gallup poll showed that 48 percent of
Americans approved of how Trump is handling his transition.'
<http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/donald-trump-quinnipiac-poll-polls-approve-disapprove-job-president-elect-favorable-unfavorable-barack-obama/>
'A plurality of voters, 45 percent, told Quinnipiac that they believe
Trump will be a worse president than Barack Obama. Thirty-four percent
said he will be a better president, and 15 percent said he will be about
the same. In addition, 32 percent of those polled said that Trump will
be a "bad" president, while 30 percent said he will be "good," 20
percent said he will be "not so good," and 12 percent said he will be
"great."'
And the poll itself:
<https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2415>
Back to top
Al Franken LIES at Sessions hearing!!
"Michael" <mikepat@gmail.com>: Jan 10 03:29PM -0500
"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:o53e9d$278$1@news.datemas.de...
On 2017-01-10 11:40 AM, Michael wrote:
> A fucking comedian!!!
> It figures.
>What is this supposed lie, Michael?
Watch Fox tonight, Doofus. And then you will know.
In fact, Cruz ripped him a new asshole for doing it.
>Is your source for this even less credible than Infowars?
I'm watching the hearing, Shit Stain.
Surprising that your not, Shit Stain. After all, you are so concerned about
America and it's politics.
:-)
Shit Stain Baker, ever the Luzer.
:-)
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jan 10 12:50PM -0800
On 2017-01-10 12:29 PM, Michael wrote:
>> It figures.
>> What is this supposed lie, Michael?
> Watch Fox tonight, Doofus. And then you will know.
So you can't say...
...because you don't know.
> In fact, Cruz ripped him a new asshole for doing it.
>> Is your source for this even less credible than Infowars?
> I'm watching the hearing, Shit Stain.
Great! So what was the lie?
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.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.