Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #470630 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-04 17:17 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-10-14 07:28 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 214 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 17:17 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:32 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 19:37 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 07:23 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 17:00 -0700
Popular politician's rowdy teen years -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-06 05:07 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 05:32 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 09:13 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-06 16:49 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-07 14:15 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 14:33 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 08:04 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:58 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 05:43 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-08 15:06 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 01:15 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 18:41 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-12 07:47 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Silicon Vee <siliconvee1945@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-12 14:14 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 05:43 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 01:40 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-13 05:41 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Silicon Vee <siliconvee1945@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-13 12:13 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-13 05:59 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-13 04:14 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Silicon Vee <siliconvee1945@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-13 14:02 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 05:21 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-13 13:48 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 14:13 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years proletariat <myemailisaol@defunct.org> - 2018-10-13 18:45 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:03 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 21:12 -0700
Who isn't "owned", you ?! Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-13 20:20 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! proletariat <myemailisaol@defunct.org> - 2018-10-13 23:51 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 21:43 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 11:21 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 08:51 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 10:40 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 12:12 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 11:25 -0500
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 12:46 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 12:01 -0500
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 14:10 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 13:22 -0500
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 11:27 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 11:42 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-15 13:43 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 13:25 -0500
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-15 16:07 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 13:32 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 22:36 +0200
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-15 16:43 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 14:03 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-15 16:46 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-16 06:48 -0500
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 05:24 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-16 14:10 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! proletariat <myemailisaol@defunct.org> - 2018-10-15 13:39 -0400
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 10:56 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 20:56 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-14 07:26 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 09:06 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-14 10:14 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-14 10:15 -0700
Just an opinion pieces written by a crack pot Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 10:18 -0700
Re: Just an opinion pieces written by a crack pot Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 11:47 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 10:52 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 11:15 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-14 12:03 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 12:34 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 13:21 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 13:37 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-14 15:07 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 15:30 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 16:45 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-14 19:44 -0700
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 00:46 +0200
Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-14 10:05 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-14 10:09 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:13 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-13 12:16 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 09:32 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:52 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-13 10:56 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-13 05:40 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Silicon Vee <siliconvee1945@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-13 12:11 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-13 10:41 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 08:30 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-13 10:59 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:09 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 07:52 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 10:59 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 08:20 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-12 08:36 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 01:46 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 18:56 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 19:12 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-13 05:42 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 03:46 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:18 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-13 12:23 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-13 10:55 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 10:44 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-15 05:21 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 03:08 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-15 05:22 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 08:26 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 05:44 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-15 09:02 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 07:18 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 17:26 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 16:24 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 07:49 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 11:46 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 09:07 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 17:28 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-15 14:26 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 12:15 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-10-15 21:32 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 19:00 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 08:10 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 23:40 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-10-16 11:08 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 17:23 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 14:14 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 13:29 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 20:41 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-15 14:33 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 14:10 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 00:13 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 20:20 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 00:33 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 21:16 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 20:02 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 01:29 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:40 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:47 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-16 17:58 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:51 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:07 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-16 06:51 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-16 12:20 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-16 12:58 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 11:10 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-16 13:23 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 11:35 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-16 13:37 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:23 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 20:31 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 13:12 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:23 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-16 18:47 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:52 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 21:48 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-16 14:08 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-16 14:08 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 00:11 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 20:18 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 00:30 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 21:12 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:43 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:47 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 08:38 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:13 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 17:22 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 07:42 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 08:52 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-12 12:44 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 13:13 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 16:51 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 14:47 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 01:39 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Silicon Vee <siliconvee1945@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-13 06:55 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 22:18 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-13 05:49 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-13 06:03 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:43 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-13 10:54 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-15 05:16 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 17:20 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-15 14:31 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 00:15 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:41 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 09:48 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-13 15:16 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-13 12:27 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 12:40 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 12:48 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 12:56 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 15:00 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 17:37 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-13 10:34 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Silicon Vee <siliconvee1945@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-13 16:35 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-13 11:00 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-13 10:59 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 13:58 -0500
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 12:30 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:49 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-10-24 21:18 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-25 08:32 -0400
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-13 11:04 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-12 12:26 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Silicon Vee <siliconvee1945@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-12 21:47 +0200
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 15:33 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-12 17:04 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 17:22 -0700
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 01:48 +0000
Re: Popular politician's rowdy teen years Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-13 11:03 -0700
RonB is an Ass. Enough said ... Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 07:28 -0700
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | proletariat <myemailisaol@defunct.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-15 13:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <1qv4atjfewf93$.12dh0yk4bwu58.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #472159 |
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:21:56 -0400, benj wrote: > On 10/13/2018 11:51 PM, proletariat wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 20:20:40 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> >>> You (Hugh) wrote: >>>> someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. >>> >>> Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? >>> We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. >>> >>> Who isn't "owned", you ?! >>> >>>> the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA >>>> was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. >>>> we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... >>> >>> Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? >>> >>> It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. >>> >>> What do you think of China's "Social Credit System" ? >>> >>> WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Social_Credit_System#Criticism >> You are correct. >> Take a look at Jeb Busch for example: >> >> https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/30/418895297/jeb-bushs-wealth-skyrocketed-after-leaving-governors-office >> > Whose wealth does NOT skyrocket after leaving government? Shit. Look at > the clintons who suddenly went from poor folks with a few hundred K to > millions overnight. No collusions I'm sure. Absolutely agree. I posted some links about the Clintons as well in another thread. Politicians are crooks. It's not a partisan issue as it crosses all parties.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-15 10:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <b701ec51-696b-4071-a81b-b2de9e2d746e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472177 |
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 10:39:45 AM UTC-7, proletariat wrote: > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:21:56 -0400, benj wrote: > > > On 10/13/2018 11:51 PM, proletariat wrote: > >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 20:20:40 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >> > >>> You (Hugh) wrote: > >>>> someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > >>> > >>> Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > >>> We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > >>> > >>> Who isn't "owned", you ?! > >>> > >>>> the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > >>>> was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > >>>> we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > >>> > >>> Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > >>> > >>> It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > >>> > >>> What do you think of China's "Social Credit System" ? > >>> > >>> WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Social_Credit_System#Criticism > >> You are correct. > >> Take a look at Jeb Busch for example: > >> > >> https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/30/418895297/jeb-bushs-wealth-skyrocketed-after-leaving-governors-office > >> > > Whose wealth does NOT skyrocket after leaving government? Shit. Look at > > the clintons who suddenly went from poor folks with a few hundred K to > > millions overnight. No collusions I'm sure. > > Absolutely agree. I posted some links about the Clintons as well in another > thread. Politicians are crooks. It's not a partisan issue as it crosses all > parties. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <fmre6tF8stoU3@mid.individual.net>, Snit wrote: >> Steve Carroll (Snit): >> For most I would say the comment is worth looking into. Of course, >> given that it's chrisv I would ignore that doubt and go straight >> to 'lie' because that's most of what chrisv does. Meaning no >> evidence is required to deem it dishonest. So what's chrisv's >> system for the flooding deluge? AppleScript? That is the only tool >> he knows, isn't it? He must be abusing it to create these goofy >> "obsession" garbage posts. My hypothesis, chrisv took Steven >> Petruzzellis's code that he stole and pretended was his... he's >> feeding it Steven Petruzzellis's posts, grabbing offensive >> paragraphs, then altering those using automated reinforcement >> learning and then he hand posts them because his insomnia enables >> him to do that practically endlessly. > >> The content is a bunch of randomized bullshit. That points to one >> person. Real discussion will be destroyed once the trolls >> overpopulate. That, and there will always be a butthurt insomniac >> or two in an open news group (hint: chrisv). The specifics of the >> bullshit aside, we have all seen who routinely gets angry when he >> does not get a response. > >> -- >> Best CMS Solution of 2017! >> https://www.facebook.com/JonasEklundh >> https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012978552519 >> https://youtu.be/GPPqvw8iEBs >> Jonas Eklundh Communication > > Why do you link to Sandman's FB page? And you do so in the same post > you point to a link to his trolling. > Why? Did he leave COLA because of you? So cute, Snit thinks he can make me leave COLA :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJbD6/mAAoJECFEwfBaA+jRjLYH+we67Zx/z0UtJtVFvIZJ/Kki 0ljOcqQgkGmhkW63ifRT6J3Lzk7JHiUs9I5ZLD09MGvk8ZIU8ZNhS7QKfGxrLJA2 k1JrXzrB+Ko6u56WOqeRMM3R17GsYDIxqwzWfzLwceGxs78Ikpjnd1J4pW1nq7yK hP/oVHenewp54mZIhb8e0eZWZasVLiKwSsO22Rr1NcJku4UrD25yNtrth+SH1ZRk 0U7X0KtHwKDE6MqlnZxexxKg+6sbdKwrn1C2oPSFc+7AtnaUfauPP0+dyrgD1rG3 +P3BkDk0eZsRgmC8kqEzCiveEk9zarSrJqLGjn3WOYiZa+aqzN9UqUCnblaFe+o= =kqoW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Top Ten Ways The Thing Trolls http://tinyurl.com/kmqe66h Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 20:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <8fce8100-31e5-4a50-9dc4-5b6d9671b1b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471925 |
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 8:20:51 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > You (Hugh) wrote: > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > What do you think of China's "Social Credit System" ? > > WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Social_Credit_System#Criticism Fool! Sandman's posts are nothing but an incomprehensible rambling. Sadly there are too many "bugs are acceptable" freetards and not enough people with the patience to help the people with psychological problems. The Mac has more consistent hot keys. Sandman will never live that down. He pisses off an entire group of people who become collateral damage, but that's a narcissist for you. What others care about isn't a factor. Sandman asked to be rated according to provable trolling measurements, which John Gohde indulged. - Do not click this link!! http://jeff-relf.me/Cola_Regs.HTM https://youtu.be/UkAyrfOZaXc http://www.5z8.info/hack-outlook_c6c9in_michaelangelo-virus Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 07:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <100fa520-d0e9-4e30-8485-19274a5f5ec0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471925 |
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > You (Hugh) wrote: > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? Time will tell for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from being financially secure. > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. No, not really. For example, my "help in obfuscating" is referring to how he was tipped off to how the 'system' has some pretty big loopholes on financial disclosures. That's why his reported debt for this past year went down by more than his gross income. > Who isn't "owned", you ?! On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. However, these requirements are effectively public record and not in any way special/unique to me, as well as the level of corresponding compensation of my job: there's at least thousands of similar individuals with effectively the same exact requirements and level of compensation, which illustrates that this is 'normal' above-board business practices which are not at all based in partisanship, nepotism, family, etc. > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are ill-equipped to actually win, since we strategically failed to prepare ahead of time and have already initiated action with bad tactical timing, which means that there's going to be a big bag of hurt in the near term even if they figure out a deal that's equal to or better than the status quo. And naturally, the ones who will take the brunt of this aren't the same ones who will benefit; case in point: > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. Red meat for his base, who will only eventually learn later that they've been set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. Plus there's already signs where huge multinationals are being favored over small domestics. > What do you think of China's "Social Credit System" ? > > WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Social_Credit_System#Criticism As the Wiki page notes: "The system is a form of mass surveillance..." which is being perpetrated by their Government. From there, the question is if one believes that this is a good or bad thing, and regardless of that answer, if such measures should be taken by governments (and if so, which kinds of governments) as well as if it should be allowed to similarly be taken by corporations. Overall, most people today don't really understand or appreciate just how much "Big Data" is transforming the old traditional means of privacy which were mostly achieved through the obscurity of being just a "tiny needle in a big haystack" that was too difficult to search. For example, there was just a report earlier this month where it is now estimated that something like ~half the US Population can now be identified by their DNA even without even having taken a DNA test: "Even if you’ve never taken a DNA test, a distant relative’s could reveal your identity" <https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/11/even-if-youve-never-taken-dna-test-distant-relatives-could-reveal-your-identity/> -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 09:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <e441246c-d691-41f4-bc8c-58bc5debc1e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471972 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > Time will tell That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > being financially secure. > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > No, not really. LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't really work. > For example, my "help in obfuscating" is referring to how > he was tipped off to how the 'system' has some pretty big loopholes on > financial disclosures. That's why his reported debt for this past year went > down by more than his gross income. When it comes to Kavanaugh I see lotsa financial accusations, very few of them are supported, sorta like the other accusations against him. I'm sure politics has nothing to do with it <eyeroll>. > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality thing again). > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't become POTUS. > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > shaping up > to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are ill-equipped to > actually win, We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > Red meat for his base Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 10:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <g2hbrsFn0o5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #471994 |
On 10/14/18 9:06 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>> You (Hugh) wrote: >>>> someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. >>> >>> Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? >> >> Time will tell > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. He is noting what will LIKELY happen and what has. That is a lot more than what you say his premise is. Pretty much your defense is we cannot see the future nor predict it with certainty... but nobody said we could. >> for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican >> party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already >> revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from >> being financially secure. >> >>> We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. >> >> No, not really. > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > what it is doesn't really work. The FBI was told to NOT investigate him in many areas. We are not able to "watch" him. And interesting how you ignore the comment on wealth worship. ... >>>> the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA >>>> was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. >>>> we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... >>> >>> Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? >> >> No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's >> just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over >> a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he >> merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund >> instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > become POTUS. He is gaining a LOT of fame -- which will translate to fortune -- for being president. Every president in modern history has been able to turn profit financially from being in the office. >> Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. If we wanted to make it fair we would insist on any products we get from them being made with respect to human rights and environmental protection. THAT would be a fight worth having. But Trump said the reasoning is he is against "a leadership class that worships globalism"... so he wants to stop international trade completely? >> shaping up >> to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are ill-equipped to >> actually win, > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. So your premise is "time will tell"! LOL! >>> It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. >> >> Red meat for his base > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. WHAT? >> , who will only eventually learn later that they've been >> set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) When will the cycle of increased income inequality turn around? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 10:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <32c20139-ae94-4988-bc2e-711a76235b6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471994 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > Time will tell > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > being financially secure. > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > No, not really. > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > what it is doesn't really work. Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures - - particularly noting the parts that changed this year vs last year. That's what I was specifically referring to here: > > For example, my "help in obfuscating" is referring to how > > he was tipped off to how the 'system' has some pretty big loopholes on > > financial disclosures. That's why his reported debt for this past year went > > down by more than his gross income. > > When it comes to Kavanaugh I see lotsa financial accusations, very few > of them are supported, sorta like the other accusations against him. I'm > sure politics has nothing to do with it <eyeroll>. Here's the record .. happy reading: <https://fixthecourt.com/2018/07/bmk-fd-all/> But if you want the lazy way out to some highlights: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-piled-up-credit-card-debt-by-purchasing-nationals-tickets-white-house-says/2018/07/11/8e3ad7d6-8460-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html> <http://time.com/money/5334403/supreme-court-nominee-brett-avanaugh-net-worth/> <https://medium.com/@gregolear/supreme-discrepancies-kavanaughs-financial-disclosure-reports-conflict-with-his-senate-testimony-b263f7c429e2> Or at least what one of his reporting form looks like: <http://pfds.opensecrets.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Kavanaugh_2017.pdf> > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > thing again). The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. For example, Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > become POTUS. Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. And just how did China "start it"? Be sure to make sure that it was something that was illegal, and not part of an agreement with a US corporation who didn't adequately value what they were bartering away. > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > Red meat for his base > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the tech sector repaying the farmers? -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 10:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Just an opinion pieces written by a crack pot |
| Message-ID | <7e73d402-5324-4c62-a0d8-0e57037cab12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472016 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:15:26 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > what it is doesn't really work. > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures - - particularly noting the > parts that changed this year vs last year. That's what I was specifically > referring to here: > > > > For example, my "help in obfuscating" is referring to how > > > he was tipped off to how the 'system' has some pretty big loopholes on > > > financial disclosures. That's why his reported debt for this past year went > > > down by more than his gross income. > > > > When it comes to Kavanaugh I see lotsa financial accusations, very few > > of them are supported, sorta like the other accusations against him. I'm > > sure politics has nothing to do with it <eyeroll>. > > Here's the record .. happy reading: > > <https://fixthecourt.com/2018/07/bmk-fd-all/> > > But if you want the lazy way out to some highlights: > > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-piled-up-credit-card-debt-by-purchasing-nationals-tickets-white-house-says/2018/07/11/8e3ad7d6-8460-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html> > > <http://time.com/money/5334403/supreme-court-nominee-brett-avanaugh-net-worth/> > > <https://medium.com/@gregolear/supreme-discrepancies-kavanaughs-financial-disclosure-reports-conflict-with-his-senate-testimony-b263f7c429e2> > > Or at least what one of his reporting form looks like: > > <http://pfds.opensecrets.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Kavanaugh_2017.pdf> > > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > thing again). > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. For example, > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > become POTUS. > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > And just how did China "start it"? Be sure to make sure that it was something > that was illegal, and not part of an agreement with a US corporation who didn't > adequately value what they were bartering away. > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > tech sector repaying the farmers? Just an opinion pieces written by a crack pot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 11:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Just an opinion pieces written by a crack pot |
| Message-ID | <6bac78e1-56b2-4414-ba75-ad42e2a6f9c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472019 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:18:44 AM UTC-7, Simon bar Sinister wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:15:26 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > > what it is doesn't really work. > > > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures - - particularly noting the > > parts that changed this year vs last year. That's what I was specifically > > referring to here: > > > > > > For example, my "help in obfuscating" is referring to how > > > > he was tipped off to how the 'system' has some pretty big loopholes on > > > > financial disclosures. That's why his reported debt for this past year went > > > > down by more than his gross income. > > > > > > When it comes to Kavanaugh I see lotsa financial accusations, very few > > > of them are supported, sorta like the other accusations against him. I'm > > > sure politics has nothing to do with it <eyeroll>. > > > > Here's the record .. happy reading: > > > > <https://fixthecourt.com/2018/07/bmk-fd-all/> > > > > But if you want the lazy way out to some highlights: > > > > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-piled-up-credit-card-debt-by-purchasing-nationals-tickets-white-house-says/2018/07/11/8e3ad7d6-8460-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html> > > > > <http://time.com/money/5334403/supreme-court-nominee-brett-avanaugh-net-worth/> > > > > <https://medium.com/@gregolear/supreme-discrepancies-kavanaughs-financial-disclosure-reports-conflict-with-his-senate-testimony-b263f7c429e2> > > > > Or at least what one of his reporting form looks like: > > > > <http://pfds.opensecrets.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Kavanaugh_2017.pdf> > > > > > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > > thing again). > > > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. For example, > > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > > > > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > > become POTUS. > > > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > > > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > > > And just how did China "start it"? Be sure to make sure that it was something > > that was illegal, and not part of an agreement with a US corporation who didn't > > adequately value what they were bartering away. > > > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > > > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > > tech sector repaying the farmers? > > > > Just an opinion pieces written by a crack pot. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <328ae2c8-12e1-4830-b455-53187a4bc309@googlegroups.com>, Steve Carroll wrote: > > Sandman: > > <http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood> It doesn't show what > > interval the script is run at, but how he has used it, at least in > > the beginning. I stopped logging it this way back in may :) > > From what I've personally looked at, it looks like it's all over the > map. Yes, with obvious scripted sessions. Not saying some of it isn't manual. > > Sandman: > > Maybe I'll update it :) > > What would it take to do that? For "later" to occur! <http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/postingtimes/Snit/Flooding> That's a running tally of Snit's non-sock posts and his flooding during the last month. It'll update automatically and always show the last two months. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZyKjaAAoJECFEwfBaA+jR4QEIAIWE3GfOGnnxynLfUhRnWv+l OkvAvQ8GofGI1JjIOn7NnlyfGRV/JPiIzJmzoCrdV6uY9E9qaYOXScF4M5Vas4bv 2WqBlNIh7se9g6Zkj330L12RkuZckS5l0nJ++OTbmztOzLtAlrWKHADTiJ9u8JnR BCjcAhMrjQ0Jwut34hJr57pzj7p88oYCPP46IcrEMbWnd03n43BGUVLGr9i9pYU+ 7F6867hOzaFJ4DdRE52zv15yIYVUIHx7HFNNtV7ZfPRBRQQuyA403S8PM1RC/nQ/ RKau+ma21bzltpxlqTO+XAXMMLLZiGXy8hbv4Ib/tPlc5cKI3P6UDZ4exbbCmnE= =1Dqa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- My Snoring Solution!! http://www.5z8.info/lemon-party-redux_v1o7pm_nakedgrandmas.jpg Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 10:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <77bb7a89-1ce2-46b7-a68d-640e2c95f51a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472016 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > what it is doesn't really work. > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures I saw enough to spot that this sky hadn't fallen the way many have claimed. that's all you get now, accusation, innuendo, etc. > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > thing again). > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. Kickbacks that are only ever alleged where Kavanaugh is concerned... a small but mighty point. The irresponsible piling on of accusations isn't helping anyone, all it does is undermine the entire hair ball for everyone. If it's all one has to run on, I guess that's what you use... but at some point enough people will see it. > For example, > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. The Congress (which consists of both sides of the aisle) does all sorts of weird things. For instance, when they put together the list of people who would be considered 'mandatory reporters' of child abuse they somehow left themselves off the list. Are we to read into this that they're comprised of a large percentage of child abusers? I guess you could but without any proof, what's the point? > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > become POTUS. > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > And just how did China "start it"? Why don't you tell me, being that you apparently believe you have the 'real' story. This isn't gonna be another 'lesson' like the 'crime stats' one, is it? Where you ramble against things you'd prefer didn't exist? <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/border-agency-employees-arrested.html?partner=msft_msn> See, that's called 'reality'... and you can't just 'argue' it away with 'prose', you actually need proof for that sh*t. > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. LOL! So they're all being duped by a con man, is that it? He stands a chance to gain something from all of them? > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > tech sector repaying the farmers? I have an idea... instead of asking even more questions, why don't you put up some proof of your myriad of allegations, insinuations, etc? You leftist loons don't get that this stuff gets *really* old.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 11:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <5b3223cf-2e5b-4302-b9d6-9dfe94f14fa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472023 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > > what it is doesn't really work. > > > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures > > I saw enough to spot that this sky hadn't fallen the way many have claimed. > that's all you get now, accusation, innuendo, etc. > > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > > thing again). > > > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. > > Kickbacks that are only ever alleged where Kavanaugh is concerned... a small > but mighty point. The irresponsible piling on of accusations isn't helping anyone, > all it does is undermine the entire hair ball for everyone. If it's all one has to run > on, I guess that's what you use... but at some point enough people will see it. > > > For example, > > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > The Congress (which consists of both sides of the aisle) does all sorts of > weird things. For instance, when they put together the list of people who > would be considered 'mandatory reporters' of child abuse they somehow > left themselves off the list. Are we to read into this that they're comprised > of a large percentage of child abusers? I guess you could but without any > proof, what's the point? > > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > > become POTUS. > > > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > > > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > > > And just how did China "start it"? > > Why don't you tell me, being that you apparently believe you have the > 'real' story. This isn't gonna be another 'lesson' like the 'crime stats' > one, is it? Where you ramble against things you'd prefer didn't exist? > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/border-agency-employees-arrested.html?partner=msft_msn> > > See, that's called 'reality'... and you can't just 'argue' it away with 'prose', > you actually need proof for that sh*t. > > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > > > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > LOL! So they're all being duped by a con man, is that it? He stands a > chance to gain something from all of them? > > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > > tech sector repaying the farmers? > > I have an idea... instead of asking even more questions, why don't you put > up some proof of your myriad of allegations, insinuations, etc? You leftist > loons don't get that this stuff gets *really* old. At times, fantasy is more valuable than reality. Budgie is likely my second favorite DE and the only one I advocate to computer newbies. Primary interface is LXQt, though. Useful keyboard shortcuts is all you want after all. Just bullshit from him. But John 'The Flooder' Gohde has left technology behind and is holding me at fault for the exploits of himself. "Well, that wasn't hard" said John 'The Flooder' Gohde's girlfriend. A shadow of false reason, projected spontaneously, at the wrong time. John 'The Flooder' Gohde proved himself to be a charlatan by claiming he would not rebut Klaus Schadenfreude by means of loudly blasting PLONK and then assailing him again using a 3rd party. John 'The Flooder' Gohde is the effect of the truth that humanists have been instructed to subvert educating our youth. It's not an accident that he is a witless leftist. - Live on Kickstarter http://www.5z8.info/nic_cage_naked_y8b5qk_torrentEverything Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 12:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <b223ff86-ca9c-459e-9185-5e58ad254b27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472023 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:52:17 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > > what it is doesn't really work. > > > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures > > I saw enough to spot that this sky hadn't fallen the way many have claimed. > that's all you get now, accusation, innuendo, etc. Except that I didn't claim that the sky has fallen - rather, to watch and wait. For example, much of Kavnaugh's personal credit card debt appears to be linked to him buying lots of Pro Baseball tickets ... for just whom was he doing so? Let's check back in a year to see if others are now buying *his* tickets. > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > > thing again). > > > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. > > Kickbacks that are only ever alleged where Kavanaugh is concerned... a small > but mighty point. The irresponsible piling on of accusations isn't helping anyone, > all it does is undermine the entire hair ball for everyone. If it's all one has to run > on, I guess that's what you use... but at some point enough people will see it. He's now finally in a terminal position of power, so people are now going to want to curry his favor, instead of vice-versa. The question is if he will allow himself to be so courted, or if he will follow the highest ethical standards of the highest court in the land. YMMV, but I have my doubts, particularly when one looks at the blatant ethical conflicts of interest that Scalia did...literally up to the day he died. > > For example, > > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > The Congress (which consists of both sides of the aisle) does all sorts of > weird things. For instance, when they put together the list of people who > would be considered 'mandatory reporters' of child abuse they somehow > left themselves off the list. Are we to read into this that they're comprised > of a large percentage of child abusers? I guess you could but without any > proof, what's the point? Agreed; I merely picked one that has a very direct line to personal enrichment. > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > > become POTUS. > > > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S Maybe in 20/20 hindsight, Steve will remember to retract his comment. /S > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > > > And just how did China "start it"? > > Why don't you tell me, being that you apparently believe you have the > 'real' story. Because it was **your** claim that China started it. Second request. > This isn't gonna be another 'lesson' like the 'crime stats' > one, is it? Where you ramble against things you'd prefer didn't exist? I still stand behind what I wrote. > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/border-agency-employees-arrested.html?partner=msft_msn> > > See, that's called 'reality'... and you can't just 'argue' it away with 'prose', > you actually need proof for that sh*t. That reality is that roughly 1% of that workforce has been charged. Now if that same rate of criminality exists within Congress, just how many of them should we statistically expect to see arrested before Election Day 2018? ;-) > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. YA lack of response noted. > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > LOL! So they're all being duped by a con man, is that it? He stands a > chance to gain something from all of them? I see that you didn't dispute my point that they had voted against their own economic interests. Perhaps you'll also figure out just what did motivate them. Of course, that answer is in more statistical surveys, so "good luck!". > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > > tech sector repaying the farmers? > > I have an idea... instead of asking even more questions, why don't you put > up some proof of your myriad of allegations, insinuations, etc? You leftist > loons don't get that this stuff gets *really* old. Still waiting for you to articulate just how "China Started It", particularly with the explanation for how this relates to US Soybean Farmers as contributors. Why? Because I've seen no evidence of that being the case. Prove me wrong. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 12:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <89686c5e-d6db-4f3f-9532-a1ef2c06e463@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472032 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:03:28 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:52:17 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > > > > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > > > what it is doesn't really work. > > > > > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures > > > > I saw enough to spot that this sky hadn't fallen the way many have claimed. > > that's all you get now, accusation, innuendo, etc. > > Except that I didn't claim that the sky has fallen - rather, to watch and wait. > For example, much of Kavnaugh's personal credit card debt appears to be > linked to him buying lots of Pro Baseball tickets ... for just whom was he doing > so? Let's check back in a year to see if others are now buying *his* tickets. > > > > > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > > > thing again). > > > > > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > > > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. > > > > Kickbacks that are only ever alleged where Kavanaugh is concerned... a small > > but mighty point. The irresponsible piling on of accusations isn't helping anyone, > > all it does is undermine the entire hair ball for everyone. If it's all one has to run > > on, I guess that's what you use... but at some point enough people will see it. > > He's now finally in a terminal position of power, so people are now going to want to > curry his favor, instead of vice-versa. The question is if he will allow himself to be > so courted, or if he will follow the highest ethical standards of the highest court in > the land. YMMV, but I have my doubts, particularly when one looks at the blatant > ethical conflicts of interest that Scalia did...literally up to the day he died. > > > > > For example, > > > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > > > The Congress (which consists of both sides of the aisle) does all sorts of > > weird things. For instance, when they put together the list of people who > > would be considered 'mandatory reporters' of child abuse they somehow > > left themselves off the list. Are we to read into this that they're comprised > > of a large percentage of child abusers? I guess you could but without any > > proof, what's the point? > > Agreed; I merely picked one that has a very direct line to personal enrichment. > > > > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > > > become POTUS. > > > > > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > > > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > Maybe in 20/20 hindsight, Steve will remember to retract his comment. /S > > > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > > > > > And just how did China "start it"? > > > > Why don't you tell me, being that you apparently believe you have the > > 'real' story. > > Because it was **your** claim that China started it. Second request. > > > This isn't gonna be another 'lesson' like the 'crime stats' > > one, is it? Where you ramble against things you'd prefer didn't exist? > > I still stand behind what I wrote. > > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/border-agency-employees-arrested.html?partner=msft_msn> > > > > See, that's called 'reality'... and you can't just 'argue' it away with 'prose', > > you actually need proof for that sh*t. > > That reality is that roughly 1% of that workforce has been charged. Now if > that same rate of criminality exists within Congress, just how many of them > should we statistically expect to see arrested before Election Day 2018? ;-) > > > > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > > > > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > > > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > > > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > YA lack of response noted. > > > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > > > > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > > > LOL! So they're all being duped by a con man, is that it? He stands a > > chance to gain something from all of them? > > I see that you didn't dispute my point that they had voted against their own > economic interests. Perhaps you'll also figure out just what did motivate them. > Of course, that answer is in more statistical surveys, so "good luck!". > > > > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > > > > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > > > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > > > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > > > tech sector repaying the farmers? > > > > I have an idea... instead of asking even more questions, why don't you put > > up some proof of your myriad of allegations, insinuations, etc? You leftist > > loons don't get that this stuff gets *really* old. > > Still waiting for you to articulate just how "China Started It", particularly with > the explanation for how this relates to US Soybean Farmers as contributors. > Why? Because I've seen no evidence of that being the case. Prove me wrong. > > -hh Effectively everything Flatfish says about anyone is a lie. Who isn't aware of this by now? It was Flatfish who stated that he and his college buddies used to steal candy from toddlers all the time and it was arousing. When I was new here, I wanted to be fair and unbiased. I gave Flatfish more than a rational person generally would. It was Flatfish who forged me (and others) and bragged about it. Being open source as it is, low-level programming will never go away but it'll never be common for the general user. What it looks like is the least of your problems and not worth obsessing over, especially if it's web based. Ha! Right, Flatfish is seeking to sell an HTML variable, which Klaus Schadenfreude can get for free, that is looped over as it removes nodes. If he could stop being so screwed up he would figure out how screwed up he appears ;) Undeniably, the only thing that is important to Flatfish is thinking he is "better", and if he can not have that he will do more research to successfully slap advocates down... ignoring him is the only option. - Live on Kickstarter!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OffkiSAsYo8 https://youtu.be/VxLiH-x0aeY https://youtu.be/UkAyrfOZaXc Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 13:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <99dca052-8c3d-4c86-a554-b3341f62dbb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472032 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:03:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:52:17 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > > > > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > > > what it is doesn't really work. > > > > > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures > > > > I saw enough to spot that this sky hadn't fallen the way many have claimed. > > that's all you get now, accusation, innuendo, etc. > > Except that I didn't claim that the sky has fallen My point is the claims are just that (I'm not very interested in claims at this point). - rather, to watch and wait. > For example, much of Kavnaugh's personal credit card debt appears to be > linked to him buying lots of Pro Baseball tickets ... for just whom was he doing > so? Let's check back in a year to see if others are now buying *his* tickets. We have to make decisions *now*, were we to wait for the 'perfect' candidate for every position and from everyone's perspective, we'd have no govt. > > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > > > thing again). > > > > > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > > > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. > > > > Kickbacks that are only ever alleged where Kavanaugh is concerned... a small > > but mighty point. The irresponsible piling on of accusations isn't helping anyone, > > all it does is undermine the entire hair ball for everyone. If it's all one has to run > > on, I guess that's what you use... but at some point enough people will see it. > > He's now finally in a terminal position of power, so people are now going to want to > curry his favor, instead of vice-versa. A position of power like President Kennedy, who was gunned down? Terminal, or not, anyone could get to him, or anyone in any other position of power in any number of ways. So why single out Kavanaugh? In my early 20s I owed almost 30k (in late 70s dollars) and I wasn't making a lot of money... took me a few years to dig out. Frankly, I don't see this as the issue that you do. > The question is if he will allow himself to be > so courted, or if he will follow the highest ethical standards of the highest court in > the land. YMMV, but I have my doubts, particularly when one looks at the blatant > ethical conflicts of interest that Scalia did...literally up to the day he died. These people aren't Gods, they're people. God-like people wouldn't stand for the process, that's why we get the kinds of people we get... been that way for a very long time. I'm not saying not to ask questions but people like you aren't governing the asking, tempering it, so as not to foster an atmosphere like this. IMO most of the people in Washington and on the SCOTUS have any number of skeletons in their closets and that will likely never change but, to me, there is a *huge* difference between a real skeleton and an alleged one. > > > For example, > > > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > > > The Congress (which consists of both sides of the aisle) does all sorts of > > weird things. For instance, when they put together the list of people who > > would be considered 'mandatory reporters' of child abuse they somehow > > left themselves off the list. Are we to read into this that they're comprised > > of a large percentage of child abusers? I guess you could but without any > > proof, what's the point? > > Agreed; I merely picked one that has a very direct line to personal enrichment. But even if true, it has nothing to do with Kavanaugh where it isn't also done by those on the other side of the fence. So, again, why single him out? I know why you're doing it... perhaps you're no longer even aware that you are doing it. > > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > > > become POTUS. > > > > > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > > > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > Maybe in 20/20 hindsight, Steve will remember to retract his comment. /S Which comment? > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > > > > > And just how did China "start it"? > > > > Why don't you tell me, being that you apparently believe you have the > > 'real' story. > > Because it was **your** claim that China started it. Second request. You know what I'll reply with and you know what you'll come back with so what's the point? I'll cite something like currency manipulation and you'll pretend it's had no effect. I'll cite the stealing of intellectual property, you'll come up with some argument I'll reject, etc. I know you reject all things Trump and his administration/tentacles but I happen to believe the report to Congress that came out early in the year regarding China's compliance with the WTO. At the least, the portions I've seen unquestionably make it apparent China is a cheater. It's more expedient if you just point out why you believe the U.S. started the trade war and how/when they did it. > > This isn't gonna be another 'lesson' like the 'crime stats' > > one, is it? Where you ramble against things you'd prefer didn't exist? > > I still stand behind what I wrote. > > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/border-agency-employees-arrested.html?partner=msft_msn> > > > > See, that's called 'reality'... and you can't just 'argue' it away with 'prose', > > you actually need proof for that sh*t. > > That reality is that roughly 1% of that workforce has been charged. To the tune of how many crimes (that's the tough one)? BTW, that 1% are the ones we know about, it could be *much* higher, we'll never know and that's the point. > Now if > that same rate of criminality exists within Congress, just how many of them > should we statistically expect to see arrested before Election Day 2018? ;-) LOL! > > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > > > > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > > > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > > > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > YA lack of response noted. I have no problem with his flying by the seat of his pants; that I see, it looks to be more effective than all the 'best laid plans' we've seen to date. I'd rather see it move the needle in one direction or the other so we can correct if need be. The idea that there's some crystal ball for this stuff isn't realistic and you don't need one to spot China's cheating (read the 2017 USTR report). > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > > > > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > > > LOL! So they're all being duped by a con man, is that it? He stands a > > chance to gain something from all of them? > > I see that you didn't dispute my point that they had voted against their own > economic interests. The above is my dispute. So make your case. > Perhaps you'll also figure out just what did motivate them. > Of course, that answer is in more statistical surveys, so "good luck!". More than any single thing, I believe they were tired of the usual Washington BS, that's the biggest reason HRC lost. Make no mistake, Trump didn't win, she lost. That's not a minor thing, I see it as an indictment of the system. The Dems were given a wake up call... they need to actually *do* that now... and it's not gonna happen by running Ocasio-Cortez or Avenatti (and probably not Biden). > > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > > > > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > > > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > > > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > > > tech sector repaying the farmers? > > > > I have an idea... instead of asking even more questions, why don't you put > > up some proof of your myriad of allegations, insinuations, etc? You leftist > > loons don't get that this stuff gets *really* old. > > Still waiting for you to articulate just how "China Started It", particularly with > the explanation for how this relates to US Soybean Farmers as contributors. It doesn't relate. > Why? Because I've seen no evidence of that being the case. Prove me wrong. Unfortunately, I honestly don't believe it's possible to prove to you that you're wrong about anything once you've committed to a position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 13:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <4f30a10f-867d-4be3-92a2-68e7506f9e12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472041 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:21:18 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:03:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:52:17 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > > > > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > > > > > > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > > > > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > > > > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > > > > what it is doesn't really work. > > > > > > > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures > > > > > > I saw enough to spot that this sky hadn't fallen the way many have claimed. > > > that's all you get now, accusation, innuendo, etc. > > > > Except that I didn't claim that the sky has fallen > > My point is the claims are just that (I'm not very interested in claims at this point). > > - rather, to watch and wait. > > For example, much of Kavnaugh's personal credit card debt appears to be > > linked to him buying lots of Pro Baseball tickets ... for just whom was he doing > > so? Let's check back in a year to see if others are now buying *his* tickets. > > We have to make decisions *now*, were we to wait for the 'perfect' candidate > for every position and from everyone's perspective, we'd have no govt. > > > > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > > > > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > > > > thing again). > > > > > > > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > > > > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. > > > > > > Kickbacks that are only ever alleged where Kavanaugh is concerned... a small > > > but mighty point. The irresponsible piling on of accusations isn't helping anyone, > > > all it does is undermine the entire hair ball for everyone. If it's all one has to run > > > on, I guess that's what you use... but at some point enough people will see it. > > > > He's now finally in a terminal position of power, so people are now going to want to > > curry his favor, instead of vice-versa. > > A position of power like President Kennedy, who was gunned down? Terminal, > or not, anyone could get to him, or anyone in any other position of power in any > number of ways. So why single out Kavanaugh? In my early 20s I owed almost > 30k (in late 70s dollars) and I wasn't making a lot of money... took me a few > years to dig out. Frankly, I don't see this as the issue that you do. > > > The question is if he will allow himself to be > > so courted, or if he will follow the highest ethical standards of the highest court in > > the land. YMMV, but I have my doubts, particularly when one looks at the blatant > > ethical conflicts of interest that Scalia did...literally up to the day he died. > > These people aren't Gods, they're people. God-like people wouldn't stand for > the process, that's why we get the kinds of people we get... been that way for > a very long time. I'm not saying not to ask questions but people like you aren't > governing the asking, tempering it, so as not to foster an atmosphere like this. > > IMO most of the people in Washington and on the SCOTUS have any number > of skeletons in their closets and that will likely never change but, to me, there > is a *huge* difference between a real skeleton and an alleged one. > > > > > For example, > > > > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > > > > > The Congress (which consists of both sides of the aisle) does all sorts of > > > weird things. For instance, when they put together the list of people who > > > would be considered 'mandatory reporters' of child abuse they somehow > > > left themselves off the list. Are we to read into this that they're comprised > > > of a large percentage of child abusers? I guess you could but without any > > > proof, what's the point? > > > > Agreed; I merely picked one that has a very direct line to personal enrichment. > > But even if true, it has nothing to do with Kavanaugh where it isn't also done > by those on the other side of the fence. So, again, why single him out? I know > why you're doing it... perhaps you're no longer even aware that you are doing it. > > > > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > > > > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > > > > become POTUS. > > > > > > > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > > > > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > > > Maybe in 20/20 hindsight, Steve will remember to retract his comment. /S > > Which comment? > > > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > > > > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > > > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > > > > > > > And just how did China "start it"? > > > > > > Why don't you tell me, being that you apparently believe you have the > > > 'real' story. > > > > Because it was **your** claim that China started it. Second request. > > You know what I'll reply with and you know what you'll come back with so > what's the point? I'll cite something like currency manipulation and you'll > pretend it's had no effect. I'll cite the stealing of intellectual property, you'll > come up with some argument I'll reject, etc. I know you reject all things > Trump and his administration/tentacles but I happen to believe the report > to Congress that came out early in the year regarding China's compliance > with the WTO. At the least, the portions I've seen unquestionably make it > apparent China is a cheater. It's more expedient if you just point out why > you believe the U.S. started the trade war and how/when they did it. > > > > This isn't gonna be another 'lesson' like the 'crime stats' > > > one, is it? Where you ramble against things you'd prefer didn't exist? > > > > I still stand behind what I wrote. > > > > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/border-agency-employees-arrested.html?partner=msft_msn> > > > > > > See, that's called 'reality'... and you can't just 'argue' it away with 'prose', > > > you actually need proof for that sh*t. > > > > That reality is that roughly 1% of that workforce has been charged. > > To the tune of how many crimes (that's the tough one)? BTW, that 1% are > the ones we know about, it could be *much* higher, we'll never know and > that's the point. > > > Now if > > that same rate of criminality exists within Congress, just how many of them > > should we statistically expect to see arrested before Election Day 2018? ;-) > > LOL! > > > > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > > > > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > > > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > > > > > > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > > > > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > > > > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > > > YA lack of response noted. > > I have no problem with his flying by the seat of his pants; that I see, it looks > to be more effective than all the 'best laid plans' we've seen to date. I'd rather > see it move the needle in one direction or the other so we can correct if need > be. The idea that there's some crystal ball for this stuff isn't realistic and you > don't need one to spot China's cheating (read the 2017 USTR report). > > > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > > > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > > > > > > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > > > > > LOL! So they're all being duped by a con man, is that it? He stands a > > > chance to gain something from all of them? > > > > I see that you didn't dispute my point that they had voted against their own > > economic interests. > > The above is my dispute. So make your case. > > > Perhaps you'll also figure out just what did motivate them. > > Of course, that answer is in more statistical surveys, so "good luck!". > > More than any single thing, I believe they were tired of the usual Washington BS, > that's the biggest reason HRC lost. Make no mistake, Trump didn't win, she lost. > That's not a minor thing, I see it as an indictment of the system. The Dems were > given a wake up call... they need to actually *do* that now... and it's not gonna > happen by running Ocasio-Cortez or Avenatti (and probably not Biden). > > > > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > > > > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > > > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > > > > > > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > > > > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > > > > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > > > > tech sector repaying the farmers? > > > > > > I have an idea... instead of asking even more questions, why don't you put > > > up some proof of your myriad of allegations, insinuations, etc? You leftist > > > loons don't get that this stuff gets *really* old. > > > > Still waiting for you to articulate just how "China Started It", particularly with > > the explanation for how this relates to US Soybean Farmers as contributors. > > It doesn't relate. > > > Why? Because I've seen no evidence of that being the case. Prove me wrong. > > Unfortunately, I honestly don't believe it's possible to prove to you that > you're wrong about anything once you've committed to a position. Snit is regularly seen insisting "THERE IS NO" when it comes to details on the web where information is easy to find... but Snit is just too daft and lazy to understand any instruction he sees. I have a custom setup I use as well, but it's a bit different. Lots of idiots are babbling about the Linux "GUI" as if they think it actually exists. And in reply you have nothing but an attempt to start a troll-fest. Open source is only cost effective if your time has no value. Snit claims to be the screencasting-teacher, let us see him put up an example minus the sorting procedures.I am happy the person you are replying to is in my shit list. - E-commerce Simplified https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/tzMH39QmAmU Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 15:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <a534d388-6e1d-48a0-a748-f5d0c53ecbbf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472041 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:03:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:52:17 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > > > > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > > > > > > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > > > > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > > > > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > > > > what it is doesn't really work. > > > > > > > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures > > > > > > I saw enough to spot that this sky hadn't fallen the way many have claimed. > > > that's all you get now, accusation, innuendo, etc. > > > > Except that I didn't claim that the sky has fallen > > My point is the claims are just that (I'm not very interested in claims at this point). Golly, that's a sudden reversal! /S > - rather, to watch and wait. > > For example, much of Kavnaugh's personal credit card debt appears to be > > linked to him buying lots of Pro Baseball tickets ... for just whom was he doing > > so? Let's check back in a year to see if others are now buying *his* tickets. > > We have to make decisions *now*, were we to wait for the 'perfect' candidate > for every position and from everyone's perspective, we'd have no govt. "Perfect Candidate" = Goalpost move. > > > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > > > > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > > > > thing again). > > > > > > > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > > > > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. > > > > > > Kickbacks that are only ever alleged where Kavanaugh is concerned... a small > > > but mighty point. The irresponsible piling on of accusations isn't helping anyone, > > > all it does is undermine the entire hair ball for everyone. If it's all one has to run > > > on, I guess that's what you use... but at some point enough people will see it. > > > > He's now finally in a terminal position of power, so people are now going to want to > > curry his favor, instead of vice-versa. > > A position of power like President Kennedy, who was gunned down? Terminal, > or not, anyone could get to him, or anyone in any other position of power in any > number of ways. So why single out Kavanaugh? In my early 20s I owed almost > 30k (in late 70s dollars) and I wasn't making a lot of money... took me a few > years to dig out. Frankly, I don't see this as the issue that you do. Once again, it is the worship of money and how 'insiders' quickly have it line their pockets. > > The question is if he will allow himself to be > > so courted, or if he will follow the highest ethical standards of the highest court in > > the land. YMMV, but I have my doubts, particularly when one looks at the blatant > > ethical conflicts of interest that Scalia did...literally up to the day he died. > > These people aren't Gods, they're people. God-like people wouldn't stand for > the process, that's why we get the kinds of people we get... been that way for > a very long time. I'm not saying not to ask questions but people like you aren't > governing the asking, tempering it, so as not to foster an atmosphere like this. > > IMO most of the people in Washington and on the SCOTUS have any number > of skeletons in their closets and that will likely never change but, to me, there > is a *huge* difference between a real skeleton and an alleged one. Good thing that his yearbook et al told us about this one, even though that all got disregarded. > > > > For example, > > > > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > > > > > The Congress (which consists of both sides of the aisle) does all sorts of > > > weird things. For instance, when they put together the list of people who > > > would be considered 'mandatory reporters' of child abuse they somehow > > > left themselves off the list. Are we to read into this that they're comprised > > > of a large percentage of child abusers? I guess you could but without any > > > proof, what's the point? > > > > Agreed; I merely picked one that has a very direct line to personal enrichment. > > But even if true, it has nothing to do with Kavanaugh where it isn't also done > by those on the other side of the fence. So, again, why single him out? I know > why you're doing it... perhaps you're no longer even aware that you are doing it. Feel free to try to explain "what I'm doing" - - but do keep in mind that I'm not endorsing corruption by either/any political party: it is all quite contemptible. > > > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > > > > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > > > > become POTUS. > > > > > > > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > > > > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > > > Maybe in 20/20 hindsight, Steve will remember to retract his comment. /S > > Which comment? Rereading is your friend. > > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > > > > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > > > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > > > > > > > And just how did China "start it"? > > > > > > Why don't you tell me, being that you apparently believe you have the > > > 'real' story. > > > > Because it was **your** claim that China started it. Second request. > > You know what I'll reply with and you know what you'll come back with so > what's the point? Because it is still **your** claim. > I'll cite something like currency manipulation and you'll > pretend it's had no effect. I'll cite the stealing of intellectual property, you'll > come up with some argument I'll reject, etc. I know you reject all things > Trump and his administration/tentacles but I happen to believe the report > to Congress that came out early in the year regarding China's compliance > with the WTO. At the least, the portions I've seen unquestionably make it > apparent China is a cheater. It's more expedient if you just point out why > you believe the U.S. started the trade war and how/when they did it. Ironic how you didn't commit to anything, not even a congressional report. > > > This isn't gonna be another 'lesson' like the 'crime stats' > > > one, is it? Where you ramble against things you'd prefer didn't exist? > > > > I still stand behind what I wrote. > > > > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/border-agency-employees-arrested.html?partner=msft_msn> > > > > > > See, that's called 'reality'... and you can't just 'argue' it away with 'prose', > > > you actually need proof for that sh*t. > > > > That reality is that roughly 1% of that workforce has been charged. > > To the tune of how many crimes (that's the tough one)? BTW, that 1% are > the ones we know about, it could be *much* higher, we'll never know and > that's the point. > > > Now if > > that same rate of criminality exists within Congress, just how many of them > > should we statistically expect to see arrested before Election Day 2018? ;-) > > LOL! Yup....flying pigs on that one, even though we agree that the number shouldn't be zero. > > > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > > > > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > > > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > > > > > > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > > > > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > > > > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > > > YA lack of response noted. > > I have no problem with his flying by the seat of his pants; that I see, it looks > to be more effective than all the 'best laid plans' we've seen to date. I'd rather > see it move the needle in one direction or the other so we can correct if need > be. The idea that there's some crystal ball for this stuff isn't realistic and you > don't need one to spot China's cheating (read the 2017 USTR report). Still waiting for (a) your commitment, and (b) the URL link. > > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > > > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > > > > > > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > > > > > LOL! So they're all being duped by a con man, is that it? He stands a > > > chance to gain something from all of them? > > > > I see that you didn't dispute my point that they had voted against their own > > economic interests. > > The above is my dispute. So make your case. > > > Perhaps you'll also figure out just what did motivate them. > > Of course, that answer is in more statistical surveys, so "good luck!". > > More than any single thing, I believe they were tired of the usual Washington BS, > that's the biggest reason HRC lost. Make no mistake, Trump didn't win, she lost. > That's not a minor thing, I see it as an indictment of the system. The Dems were > given a wake up call... they need to actually *do* that now... and it's not gonna > happen by running Ocasio-Cortez or Avenatti (and probably not Biden). Interesting opinion, which IMO has some merit...but that observation still doesn't mean that they didn't end up voting against their own economic interests. > > > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > > > > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > > > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > > > > > > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > > > > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > > > > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > > > > tech sector repaying the farmers? > > > > > > I have an idea... instead of asking even more questions, why don't you put > > > up some proof of your myriad of allegations, insinuations, etc? You leftist > > > loons don't get that this stuff gets *really* old. > > > > Still waiting for you to articulate just how "China Started It", particularly with > > the explanation for how this relates to US Soybean Farmers as contributors. > > It doesn't relate. Thanks for conceding to my point. BTW, the "kickback" to corn of 15% Ethanol which got cheers at a recent rally has a footnote in that the requirement to have any Ethanol at all in gas is reportedly being relaxed...that's a gimme for the oil refiners. Now given that gas without Ethanol in it is cheaper than with it, just what do you think is going to happen? And if you're a corn farmer, are you still cheering? Only if you didn't hear about the second part. > > Why? Because I've seen no evidence of that being the case. Prove me wrong. > > Unfortunately, I honestly don't believe it's possible to prove to you that > you're wrong about anything once you've committed to a position. Except for how you just did come around to understanding and agreeing with one of my points; there's hope for you yet. In the meantime, this week's investment consideration is diversification into counters including Gold and/or Cash, with the latter including tax-free Municipal Money Market Funds, such as Vanguard's VMSXX. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 15:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <c869a036-01ce-4e09-a68e-c8bf1a609c41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472066 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 4:07:25 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:03:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:52:17 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > > > > > > > > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > > > > > > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > > > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > > > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > > > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > > > > > what it is doesn't really work. > > > > > > > > > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures > > > > > > > > I saw enough to spot that this sky hadn't fallen the way many have claimed. > > > > that's all you get now, accusation, innuendo, etc. > > > > > > Except that I didn't claim that the sky has fallen > > > > My point is the claims are just that (I'm not very interested in claims at this point). > > Golly, that's a sudden reversal! /S Yeah, it's diametrically opposed to my first comment to you: "That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though." LOL! How many ways did I say it's all claims, allegations, insinuations? I didn't count ;) > > - rather, to watch and wait. > > > For example, much of Kavnaugh's personal credit card debt appears to be > > > linked to him buying lots of Pro Baseball tickets ... for just whom was he doing > > > so? Let's check back in a year to see if others are now buying *his* tickets. > > > > We have to make decisions *now*, were we to wait for the 'perfect' candidate > > for every position and from everyone's perspective, we'd have no govt. > > "Perfect Candidate" = Goalpost move. "Perfect Candidate" = non-existent. It really wouldn't matter who it was, we all know what was going to happen. > > > > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > > > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > > > > > thing again). > > > > > > > > > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > > > > > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. > > > > > > > > Kickbacks that are only ever alleged where Kavanaugh is concerned... a small > > > > but mighty point. The irresponsible piling on of accusations isn't helping anyone, > > > > all it does is undermine the entire hair ball for everyone. If it's all one has to run > > > > on, I guess that's what you use... but at some point enough people will see it. > > > > > > He's now finally in a terminal position of power, so people are now going to want to > > > curry his favor, instead of vice-versa. > > > > A position of power like President Kennedy, who was gunned down? Terminal, > > or not, anyone could get to him, or anyone in any other position of power in any > > number of ways. So why single out Kavanaugh? In my early 20s I owed almost > > 30k (in late 70s dollars) and I wasn't making a lot of money... took me a few > > years to dig out. Frankly, I don't see this as the issue that you do. > > Once again, it is the worship of money and how 'insiders' quickly have it line > their pockets. Once again, even *if* it's true in Kavanaugh's case, why single him out? > > > The question is if he will allow himself to be > > > so courted, or if he will follow the highest ethical standards of the highest court in > > > the land. YMMV, but I have my doubts, particularly when one looks at the blatant > > > ethical conflicts of interest that Scalia did...literally up to the day he died. > > > > These people aren't Gods, they're people. God-like people wouldn't stand for > > the process, that's why we get the kinds of people we get... been that way for > > a very long time. I'm not saying not to ask questions but people like you aren't > > governing the asking, tempering it, so as not to foster an atmosphere like this. > > > > IMO most of the people in Washington and on the SCOTUS have any number > > of skeletons in their closets and that will likely never change but, to me, there > > is a *huge* difference between a real skeleton and an alleged one. > > Good thing that his yearbook et al told us about this one, even though that all > got disregarded. A high school yearbook? Please. > > > > > For example, > > > > > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > > > > > > > The Congress (which consists of both sides of the aisle) does all sorts of > > > > weird things. For instance, when they put together the list of people who > > > > would be considered 'mandatory reporters' of child abuse they somehow > > > > left themselves off the list. Are we to read into this that they're comprised > > > > of a large percentage of child abusers? I guess you could but without any > > > > proof, what's the point? > > > > > > Agreed; I merely picked one that has a very direct line to personal enrichment. > > > > But even if true, it has nothing to do with Kavanaugh where it isn't also done > > by those on the other side of the fence. So, again, why single him out? I know > > why you're doing it... perhaps you're no longer even aware that you are doing it. > > Feel free to try to explain "what I'm doing" You're playing the role of partisan hack pretty effectively... and I doubt you see that. > - - but do keep in mind that I'm not > endorsing corruption by either/any political party: it is all quite contemptible. > > > > > > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > > > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > > > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > > > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > > > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > > > > > become POTUS. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > > > > > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > > > > > Maybe in 20/20 hindsight, Steve will remember to retract his comment. /S > > > > Which comment? > > Rereading is your friend. How can I 'reread' what comment you're referring to? > > > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > > > > > > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > > > > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > > > > > > > > > And just how did China "start it"? > > > > > > > > Why don't you tell me, being that you apparently believe you have the > > > > 'real' story. > > > > > > Because it was **your** claim that China started it. Second request. > > > > You know what I'll reply with and you know what you'll come back with so > > what's the point? > > Because it is still **your** claim. > > > I'll cite something like currency manipulation and you'll > > pretend it's had no effect. I'll cite the stealing of intellectual property, you'll > > come up with some argument I'll reject, etc. I know you reject all things > > Trump and his administration/tentacles but I happen to believe the report > > to Congress that came out early in the year regarding China's compliance > > with the WTO. At the least, the portions I've seen unquestionably make it > > apparent China is a cheater. It's more expedient if you just point out why > > you believe the U.S. started the trade war and how/when they did it. > > Ironic how you didn't commit to anything, not even a congressional report. In my opinion anyone who can read that report and *not* come away with the idea that China didn't play by the rules is probably a partisan hack. Comment enough for ya? > > > > This isn't gonna be another 'lesson' like the 'crime stats' > > > > one, is it? Where you ramble against things you'd prefer didn't exist? > > > > > > I still stand behind what I wrote. > > > > > > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/border-agency-employees-arrested.html?partner=msft_msn> > > > > > > > > See, that's called 'reality'... and you can't just 'argue' it away with 'prose', > > > > you actually need proof for that sh*t. > > > > > > That reality is that roughly 1% of that workforce has been charged. > > > > To the tune of how many crimes (that's the tough one)? BTW, that 1% are > > the ones we know about, it could be *much* higher, we'll never know and > > that's the point. > > > > > Now if > > > that same rate of criminality exists within Congress, just how many of them > > > should we statistically expect to see arrested before Election Day 2018? ;-) > > > > LOL! > > Yup....flying pigs on that one, even though we agree that the number shouldn't > be zero. > > > > > > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > > > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > > > > > > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > > > > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > > > > > > > > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > > > > > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > > > > > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > > > > > YA lack of response noted. > > > > I have no problem with his flying by the seat of his pants; that I see, it looks > > to be more effective than all the 'best laid plans' we've seen to date. I'd rather > > see it move the needle in one direction or the other so we can correct if need > > be. The idea that there's some crystal ball for this stuff isn't realistic and you > > don't need one to spot China's cheating (read the 2017 USTR report). > > Still waiting for (a) your commitment, and (b) the URL link. I figure if you really care you can find it... but I suspect you won't bother to look. Like I said, I don;t believe it's possible to convince you of something once you've dug your heels in <shrug>. > > > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > > > > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > > > > > > > > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > > > > > > > LOL! So they're all being duped by a con man, is that it? He stands a > > > > chance to gain something from all of them? > > > > > > I see that you didn't dispute my point that they had voted against their own > > > economic interests. > > > > The above is my dispute. So make your case. > > > > > Perhaps you'll also figure out just what did motivate them. > > > Of course, that answer is in more statistical surveys, so "good luck!". > > > > More than any single thing, I believe they were tired of the usual Washington BS, > > that's the biggest reason HRC lost. Make no mistake, Trump didn't win, she lost. > > That's not a minor thing, I see it as an indictment of the system. The Dems were > > given a wake up call... they need to actually *do* that now... and it's not gonna > > happen by running Ocasio-Cortez or Avenatti (and probably not Biden). > > Interesting opinion, which IMO has some merit...but that observation still doesn't > mean that they didn't end up voting against their own economic interests. And any minute now you'll make that case ;) > > > > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > > > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > > > > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > > > > > > > > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > > > > > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > > > > > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > > > > > tech sector repaying the farmers? > > > > > > > > I have an idea... instead of asking even more questions, why don't you put > > > > up some proof of your myriad of allegations, insinuations, etc? You leftist > > > > loons don't get that this stuff gets *really* old. > > > > > > Still waiting for you to articulate just how "China Started It", particularly with > > > the explanation for how this relates to US Soybean Farmers as contributors. > > > > It doesn't relate. > > Thanks for conceding to my point. In your mind that happened... but I'd submit you're not looking at the report I mentioned... plenty of things that aren't tied to farming in it. > BTW, the "kickback" to corn of 15% Ethanol which got cheers at a recent rally > has a footnote in that the requirement to have any Ethanol at all in gas is > reportedly being relaxed...that's a gimme for the oil refiners. Now given that gas > without Ethanol in it is cheaper than with it, just what do you think is going to > happen? And if you're a corn farmer, are you still cheering? Only if you didn't > hear about the second part. Hint: There are going to be winners and losers when you start doing *anything* with trade. > > > > Why? Because I've seen no evidence of that being the case. Prove me wrong. > > > > Unfortunately, I honestly don't believe it's possible to prove to you that > > you're wrong about anything once you've committed to a position. > > Except for how you just did come around to understanding and agreeing with > one of my points; there's hope for you yet. I have no idea what you're talking about here. > In the meantime, this week's investment consideration is diversification into > counters including Gold and/or Cash, with the latter including tax-free Municipal > Money Market Funds, such as Vanguard's VMSXX. So let's have it, where's the dark cloud, Mr. Sunshine? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 16:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <3e0f5c50-6982-470a-91d6-633faa911247@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472071 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 3:30:49 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 4:07:25 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:03:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 1:52:17 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 11:15:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 12:06:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:26:52 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 11:20:51 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > > > > > You (Hugh) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > someone OWNS him [ Kavanaugh ]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who, the bankers ? What's your _ conspiracy theory ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Time will tell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though. > > > > > > > > > > > > But there still are some specifics, which suffice for the point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the specifics, but in the meantime, despite the Republican > > > > > > > > party classical worship of wealth, Kavanaugh's disclosures have already > > > > > > > > revealed (despite also already having help in obfuscating) that he is far from > > > > > > > > being financially secure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We ( you, the media, and the FBI ) are watching him closely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, not really. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL! Everyone is watching.Trying to turn reality into something other than > > > > > > > what it is doesn't really work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearly, you didn't read his financial disclosures > > > > > > > > > > I saw enough to spot that this sky hadn't fallen the way many have claimed. > > > > > that's all you get now, accusation, innuendo, etc. > > > > > > > > Except that I didn't claim that the sky has fallen > > > > > > My point is the claims are just that (I'm not very interested in claims at this point). > > > > Golly, that's a sudden reversal! /S > > Yeah, it's diametrically opposed to my first comment to you: > > "That's the premise of everything you're saying, not a lot of substance though." > > LOL! How many ways did I say it's all claims, allegations, insinuations? I didn't count ;) > > > > - rather, to watch and wait. > > > > For example, much of Kavnaugh's personal credit card debt appears to be > > > > linked to him buying lots of Pro Baseball tickets ... for just whom was he doing > > > > so? Let's check back in a year to see if others are now buying *his* tickets. > > > > > > We have to make decisions *now*, were we to wait for the 'perfect' candidate > > > for every position and from everyone's perspective, we'd have no govt. > > > > "Perfect Candidate" = Goalpost move. > > "Perfect Candidate" = non-existent. It really wouldn't matter who it was, we all > know what was going to happen. > > > > > > > > > > > Who isn't "owned", you ?! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, I freely admit that I am 'owned' in various ways, in the form of > > > > > > > > certain NDA style obligations for which I receive a nominal salary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not "owned", that's monetary renumeration (it's that ol' reality > > > > > > > thing again). > > > > > > > > > > > > The terminology was Jeff-Relf's, and the point is that mine is renumeration for > > > > > > a clearly defined job, without the prospects of kickbacks, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Kickbacks that are only ever alleged where Kavanaugh is concerned... a small > > > > > but mighty point. The irresponsible piling on of accusations isn't helping anyone, > > > > > all it does is undermine the entire hair ball for everyone. If it's all one has to run > > > > > on, I guess that's what you use... but at some point enough people will see it. > > > > > > > > He's now finally in a terminal position of power, so people are now going to want to > > > > curry his favor, instead of vice-versa. > > > > > > A position of power like President Kennedy, who was gunned down? Terminal, > > > or not, anyone could get to him, or anyone in any other position of power in any > > > number of ways. So why single out Kavanaugh? In my early 20s I owed almost > > > 30k (in late 70s dollars) and I wasn't making a lot of money... took me a few > > > years to dig out. Frankly, I don't see this as the issue that you do. > > > > Once again, it is the worship of money and how 'insiders' quickly have it line > > their pockets. > > Once again, even *if* it's true in Kavanaugh's case, why single him out? > > > > > The question is if he will allow himself to be > > > > so courted, or if he will follow the highest ethical standards of the highest court in > > > > the land. YMMV, but I have my doubts, particularly when one looks at the blatant > > > > ethical conflicts of interest that Scalia did...literally up to the day he died. > > > > > > These people aren't Gods, they're people. God-like people wouldn't stand for > > > the process, that's why we get the kinds of people we get... been that way for > > > a very long time. I'm not saying not to ask questions but people like you aren't > > > governing the asking, tempering it, so as not to foster an atmosphere like this. > > > > > > IMO most of the people in Washington and on the SCOTUS have any number > > > of skeletons in their closets and that will likely never change but, to me, there > > > is a *huge* difference between a real skeleton and an alleged one. > > > > Good thing that his yearbook et al told us about this one, even though that all > > got disregarded. > > A high school yearbook? Please. > > > > > > > For example, > > > > > > Congress exempted themselves from the SEC prohibitions on Insider Trading. > > > > > > > > > > The Congress (which consists of both sides of the aisle) does all sorts of > > > > > weird things. For instance, when they put together the list of people who > > > > > would be considered 'mandatory reporters' of child abuse they somehow > > > > > left themselves off the list. Are we to read into this that they're comprised > > > > > of a large percentage of child abusers? I guess you could but without any > > > > > proof, what's the point? > > > > > > > > Agreed; I merely picked one that has a very direct line to personal enrichment. > > > > > > But even if true, it has nothing to do with Kavanaugh where it isn't also done > > > by those on the other side of the fence. So, again, why single him out? I know > > > why you're doing it... perhaps you're no longer even aware that you are doing it. > > > > Feel free to try to explain "what I'm doing" > > You're playing the role of partisan hack pretty effectively... and I doubt you see that. > > > - - but do keep in mind that I'm not > > endorsing corruption by either/any political party: it is all quite contemptible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA > > > > > > > > > > was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. > > > > > > > > > > we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's > > > > > > > > just been par for #45: as Fortune or Forbes (I forget which) reported over > > > > > > > > a year ago, Donald would be substantially (like ~3x) more wealthy had he > > > > > > > > merely put the money he got from his Father into a Stock Market Index Fund > > > > > > > > instead of conducting any business endeavors on his own. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hindsight is 20/20... one could also argue he'd also be wealthier if he hadn't > > > > > > > become POTUS. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, he did learn from his first bankruptcy ... oh, wait! I meant to say > > > > > > that he learn from his *second* bankruptcy ... um...oops! /S > > > > > > > > Maybe in 20/20 hindsight, Steve will remember to retract his comment. /S > > > > > > Which comment? > > > > Rereading is your friend. > > How can I 'reread' what comment you're referring to? > > > > > > > > > Plus it depends on what scale you use. The trade war with China is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... one *they* started, we're only now making it a fair fight. I repeat: Trying > > > > > > > to turn reality into something other than what it is doesn't work. > > > > > > > > > > > > And just how did China "start it"? > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you tell me, being that you apparently believe you have the > > > > > 'real' story. > > > > > > > > Because it was **your** claim that China started it. Second request. > > > > > > You know what I'll reply with and you know what you'll come back with so > > > what's the point? > > > > Because it is still **your** claim. > > > > > I'll cite something like currency manipulation and you'll > > > pretend it's had no effect. I'll cite the stealing of intellectual property, you'll > > > come up with some argument I'll reject, etc. I know you reject all things > > > Trump and his administration/tentacles but I happen to believe the report > > > to Congress that came out early in the year regarding China's compliance > > > with the WTO. At the least, the portions I've seen unquestionably make it > > > apparent China is a cheater. It's more expedient if you just point out why > > > you believe the U.S. started the trade war and how/when they did it. > > > > Ironic how you didn't commit to anything, not even a congressional report. > > In my opinion anyone who can read that report and *not* come away with the > idea that China didn't play by the rules is probably a partisan hack. Comment > enough for ya? > > > > > > This isn't gonna be another 'lesson' like the 'crime stats' > > > > > one, is it? Where you ramble against things you'd prefer didn't exist? > > > > > > > > I still stand behind what I wrote. > > > > > > > > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/border-agency-employees-arrested.html?partner=msft_msn> > > > > > > > > > > See, that's called 'reality'... and you can't just 'argue' it away with 'prose', > > > > > you actually need proof for that sh*t. > > > > > > > > That reality is that roughly 1% of that workforce has been charged. > > > > > > To the tune of how many crimes (that's the tough one)? BTW, that 1% are > > > the ones we know about, it could be *much* higher, we'll never know and > > > that's the point. > > > > > > > Now if > > > > that same rate of criminality exists within Congress, just how many of them > > > > should we statistically expect to see arrested before Election Day 2018? ;-) > > > > > > LOL! > > > > Yup....flying pigs on that one, even though we agree that the number shouldn't > > be zero. > > > > > > > > > > > > shaping up to be quite economically disruptive and a fight that we are > > > > > > > > ill-equipped to actually win, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We'll see, won't we. I know I'd rather go down fighting than do what we've > > > > > > > been doing, which is rolling over and taking it dry. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not the point being made here. Long ago on another policy topic, I asked the > > > > > > question: "Who was the last leader who *deliberately* started a two-front war?". > > > > > > The point is that if you're going to conduct an operation, you make a plan first. > > > > > > > > YA lack of response noted. > > > > > > I have no problem with his flying by the seat of his pants; that I see, it looks > > > to be more effective than all the 'best laid plans' we've seen to date. I'd rather > > > see it move the needle in one direction or the other so we can correct if need > > > be. The idea that there's some crystal ball for this stuff isn't realistic and you > > > don't need one to spot China's cheating (read the 2017 USTR report). > > > > Still waiting for (a) your commitment, and (b) the URL link. > > I figure if you really care you can find it... but I suspect you won't bother to look. > Like I said, I don;t believe it's possible to convince you of something once you've > dug your heels in <shrug>. > > > > > > > > > > It's (popular) lip service to American workers, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Red meat for his base > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, screw those 'little people', right? They'll never be smart enough to > > > > > > > sign NDA style obligations for a "nominal salary" so fck 'em <eyeroll>. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. I'm sorry that they've voted against their own economic interests. > > > > > > > > > > LOL! So they're all being duped by a con man, is that it? He stands a > > > > > chance to gain something from all of them? > > > > > > > > I see that you didn't dispute my point that they had voted against their own > > > > economic interests. > > > > > > The above is my dispute. So make your case. > > > > > > > Perhaps you'll also figure out just what did motivate them. > > > > Of course, that answer is in more statistical surveys, so "good luck!". > > > > > > More than any single thing, I believe they were tired of the usual Washington BS, > > > that's the biggest reason HRC lost. Make no mistake, Trump didn't win, she lost. > > > That's not a minor thing, I see it as an indictment of the system. The Dems were > > > given a wake up call... they need to actually *do* that now... and it's not gonna > > > happen by running Ocasio-Cortez or Avenatti (and probably not Biden). > > > > Interesting opinion, which IMO has some merit...but that observation still doesn't > > mean that they didn't end up voting against their own economic interests. > > And any minute now you'll make that case ;) > > > > > > > > > >, who will only eventually learn later that they've been > > > > > > > > set up to be the sacrificial lamb for other players in the Economy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is quite the future you're forecasting, it largely consists of the idea > > > > > > > that things run in cycles. What a mystic ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it has nothing to do with cycles, but simply the observation that > > > > > > commodities (soybeans, etc) are taking the brunt of the hit for how the > > > > > > tech sector sold out their IP for far too little. To that end, why isn't it the > > > > > > tech sector repaying the farmers? > > > > > > > > > > I have an idea... instead of asking even more questions, why don't you put > > > > > up some proof of your myriad of allegations, insinuations, etc? You leftist > > > > > loons don't get that this stuff gets *really* old. > > > > > > > > Still waiting for you to articulate just how "China Started It", particularly with > > > > the explanation for how this relates to US Soybean Farmers as contributors. > > > > > > It doesn't relate. > > > > Thanks for conceding to my point. > > In your mind that happened... but I'd submit you're not looking at the report I > mentioned... plenty of things that aren't tied to farming in it. > > > BTW, the "kickback" to corn of 15% Ethanol which got cheers at a recent rally > > has a footnote in that the requirement to have any Ethanol at all in gas is > > reportedly being relaxed...that's a gimme for the oil refiners. Now given that gas > > without Ethanol in it is cheaper than with it, just what do you think is going to > > happen? And if you're a corn farmer, are you still cheering? Only if you didn't > > hear about the second part. > > Hint: There are going to be winners and losers when you start doing *anything* > with trade. > > > > > > > Why? Because I've seen no evidence of that being the case. Prove me wrong. > > > > > > Unfortunately, I honestly don't believe it's possible to prove to you that > > > you're wrong about anything once you've committed to a position. > > > > Except for how you just did come around to understanding and agreeing with > > one of my points; there's hope for you yet. > > I have no idea what you're talking about here. > > > In the meantime, this week's investment consideration is diversification into > > counters including Gold and/or Cash, with the latter including tax-free Municipal > > Money Market Funds, such as Vanguard's VMSXX. > > So let's have it, where's the dark cloud, Mr. Sunshine? ;) Dropping support for Bash is obvious. I know we have different perspectives completely. I think the point is not 100% to get innocent posters to listen to him. The point is likely to piss me off for trolling outside groups he knows I frequent. Now that nobody is speaking to John Gohde, he's making it sound like he's gotten what he wants -- when in fact, people are just not playing his game anymore. Lots of trolls are still talking about the GNU/Linux "interface" as if they think it seriously could happen. John Gohde's posts are nothing but a valueless brain dump. HA! How did John Gohde get _so_ self-centered he thinks everything is about him?? - Best CMS Solution of 2017! https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/BVpdH5KOc6s Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 19:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <g2id91Ftea1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #472071 |
On 10/14/18 3:30 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>> We have to make decisions *now*, were we to wait for the 'perfect' candidate >>> for every position and from everyone's perspective, we'd have no govt. >> >> "Perfect Candidate" = Goalpost move. > > "Perfect Candidate" = non-existent. It really wouldn't matter who it was, we all > know what was going to happen. You "knew" that Trump was going to push someone that even his buddy would ask to be investigated? <https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/10/11/chief-justice-roberts-requests-tenth-circuit-to-investigate-kavanaugh-ethics-questions/#36d8a7851877> ... >>> A position of power like President Kennedy, who was gunned down? Terminal, >>> or not, anyone could get to him, or anyone in any other position of power in any >>> number of ways. So why single out Kavanaugh? In my early 20s I owed almost >>> 30k (in late 70s dollars) and I wasn't making a lot of money... took me a few >>> years to dig out. Frankly, I don't see this as the issue that you do. >> >> Once again, it is the worship of money and how 'insiders' quickly have it line >> their pockets. > > Once again, even *if* it's true in Kavanaugh's case, why single him out? Why single Kavanaugh out in a discussion of Kavanaugh? ... >>> But even if true, it has nothing to do with Kavanaugh where it isn't also done >>> by those on the other side of the fence. So, again, why single him out? I know >>> why you're doing it... perhaps you're no longer even aware that you are doing it. >> >> Feel free to try to explain "what I'm doing" > > You're playing the role of partisan hack pretty effectively... and I doubt you see that. Do you have a mirror? You excuse Kavanaugh no matter what... and blame those who point out things to investigate for those things instead of looking at Kavanaugh! >> - - but do keep in mind that I'm not >> endorsing corruption by either/any political party: it is all quite contemptible. Carroll could not make it this far into the sentence before calling you a partisan hack. >>>>>>>>>> the "deal" that Trump just bragged about for NAFTA >>>>>>>>>> was actually unchanged [ or worse ]. >>>>>>>>>> we're still waiting on that promised deal with North Korea, China ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sounds like there isn't going to be much change, right ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, its going to be worse than the status quo would have been, but that's ... -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-15 00:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Who isn't "owned", you ?! |
| Message-ID | <87o9bw9met.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #472066 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> writes: > Good thing that his yearbook et al told us about this one, even though that all > got disregarded. Oh dear. How sad. -- chrisv alias turdv is a turd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web