A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: Felicity on 31 Jul 2010 21:22 dene wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-FB9D3E.17483031072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > No, I am arriving at a conclusion unequivocally supported by the > > observed evidence - that you are a dumbass :-) > > Here are my unequivocally observations > > 1. BAR isn't dumb > 2. You are full of yourself. > > -Greg Greggie, dear boy. Good to see you are still here. You might want to rethink such posts. Take the lead dearest boy. They get no where. Here in the UK, we have similar problems. We argue till days end, nothing gets accomplished. You take the lead, Greggie you handsome devil. Rise above the muck. "F"
From: BAR on 31 Jul 2010 21:40 In article <wclark2-513B7C.17363431072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > In article <MPG.26be2a79e87bedb698a163(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <wclark2-479852.12420731072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > In article <MPG.26bd1fd6d79af2ab98a156(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <aij6569cpam0ad72mac777mo5cqji2gjen(a)4ax.com>, > > > > bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > > > > >> The White House has apologized. Breitbart, who started the mess, > > > > > >> hasn't. He's an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > >Has every press outlet apologized for each and every mistake they have > > > > > >ever made? No. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for admitting he made a mistake. > > > > > > > > I made no such admission. I asked a question and answered the question. > > > > > > > > > >Stop acting like a spoiled child. > > > > > > > > > > Wanting someone to own up is acting like a spoiled child? > > > > > Oh, its Bert. I forgot. > > > > > > > > You are forgetting that the press cherry picks bits and pieces of > > > > interviews and videos to bias what they present each and every day. The > > > > fact that you won't admit that this SOP is laughable. > > > > > > So is Breitbart a deliberate liar or not? Simple moral question - yes or > > > no will do. > > > > Breitbart is a publisher and he made a business decision just like the > > NYT, WaPo and other media outlets. > > > > Judgement on Breitbart's using your moral question is irrelevant. > > > > Remember, government censor, businesses make decisions. > > So did he lie with the intention of misrepresenting the NAACP and Ms. > Sherrod or not? Simple question. Have the cojones to answer it. He made a business decision.
From: BAR on 31 Jul 2010 21:49 In article <38u856tig9v3mdq3orii3kae1vl4b74sgj(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 @charter.net says... > > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:39:17 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >You are a fool if you think that the Sec of Ag went off on his own and > >fired a black woman for speaking at an NAACP event without consulting > >the White House and the DOJ first. Vislack didn't appoint Sherrod and he > >sure as hell wasn't going to fire her without getting permission. > > It wasn't even about *speaking* at an NAACP event--it was about > accepting Breitbart's cherry-picked snippet as believable evidence > that Sherrod was racist. Almost nobody did due diligence on the > episode, but Breitbart didn't even intend to. Why was Sherrod pushed out of Ag? It was a knee jerk reaction by the Obama administration with the knowledge of Obama and the DOJ. Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president due to the fact that they are appointed by the president. Obama doesn't need to perform due dillegence on Sherrod. He can just say her services are no longer needed and it would be better if her resume didn't say she was fired. The DOJ just confirmed that political or patronage position like US attornies can be fired at any time for any reason. Sherrod was a political problem for Obama and the Democrats just like Rangel and Waters are now problems for Obama and the Democrats. But, Obama can't fire Rangel or Waters, however, Obama can come out and effectively say that he hopes that Rangel enjoys his retirement from public service. The question will be whether Rangel and Waters fall on their swords and take one for the team, the Democrat team.
From: BAR on 31 Jul 2010 21:50 In article <wclark2-7B0F5F.17403131072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > In article <MPG.26be29157aaaf08498a161(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <wclark2-24C74C.12303731072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > >> > So what color is the sky in your world? America didn't want the scum > > > > >> > here. > > > > >> > Obama listened. A first for him. > > > > >> > > > > >> Are they worse scum than the rapists and child molesters that we > > > > >> incarcerate here? > > > > > > > > > > Or Anthony Breitbart? > > > > > > > > Another person who scares the libs as much as Palin. > > > > > > No, another person that the left would LOVE to keep front and center, > > > just like Eskimo Barbie. The longer the GoP looks as though it is > > > hitched to them, the longer they stay out of power. > > > > Why are the British now de-centralizing and privatizing health services > > delivery? Could it be that the left has been wrong about command and > > control of vast swaths of the economy? > > Because they have elected a right wing government, idealogically wedded > to the notion of privatization. The state of the economy has nothing to > do with it for them. Were you asleep during the Thatcher years? Now we are getting somewhere, you are against private property. When are you going to disgorge your private property?
From: Carbon on 31 Jul 2010 23:45
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:43:57 -0400, BAR wrote: > In article <wclark2-5C18F7.12513931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... >> In article <4c536b4e$0$4970$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:37:55 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >>>> news:alangbaker-C06CE9.13143130072010(a)news.shawcable.com... >>>>> In article <8bgpttFmcfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" >>>>> <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:alangbaker-EDCC5B.13025030072010(a)news.shawcable.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> The full video is 43 minutes long. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't you think a real journalist would have reviewed that >>>>>>> before putting up cherry-picked sections of it and passing >>>>>>> judgement? >>>>>> >>>>>> What makes you think he didn't have the whole video? >>>>> >>>>> If he did, that makes his actions even worse, because it has been >>>>> pretty much universally agreed that anyone who has seen the whole >>>>> video could never have made the claims of racism that Breitbart >>>>> made. >>>>> >>>>> You're really digging yourself a hole here, Mike, and for what? >>>>> >>>> I not digging anything. Breitbart is attempting to show racism at >>>> the NAACP, not specifically to Sherrod. Whether you think he does >>>> or does not accomplish this is debatable. >>> >>> He was attempting to smear the NAACP, not "show racism." Look at his >>> deliberately misleading excerpt. Then look at the full video. Unless >>> you're totally demented you'll be able to see what he did. >> >> I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "demented" bit :-) > > By definition the NAACP is a racist organization. I'm almost afraid to ask, but: which definition would that be? |