A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: William Clark on 1 Aug 2010 11:18 In article <MPG.26be9cdadaeb0da698a16d(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > 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? Bertie, Bertie, your syntax meter seems to be as far out of whack as your ethical one. Who builds roads in the US? You?
From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 11:48 In article <wclark2-D1994D.11114301082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > 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. > > OK, so you simply refuse to see this as a total distortion of the truth > for political ends. Just goes to show how much any of your "opinions" > are worth. Absolutely nothing from a moral midget. > Exactly what was distored?
From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 11:54 In article <wclark2-8453CE.11171301082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > In article <MPG.26be9c9cd52124da98a16c(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > No, by the Dept. of Ag. If you disagree, please cite the source for "the > knowledge of Obama and the DOJ", or else withdraw. Another cheap attempt > to smear from a moral pygmy who defends Breitbart. > > > > 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 > > More typical BS. The newsgroups most prolific liar is demanding that I withdraw an opinion. You really don't keep up with politics Billy. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128675651
From: William Clark on 1 Aug 2010 12:56 In article <8bjv3hFufjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <8bj66lFm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > > > news:MPG.26be08094943135398a15f(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > > > And, superstition is more widely believed and adhered to around the > > > > world than science. > > > > > > Ask any baseball player. Golfers too. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > No, their superstition does not contribute to their ability at the game, > > just to how they calm their nerves. > > It's belief. I didn't claim there was in validity. It's a shot in the > dark, like atheistic evolution. > > -Greg No, not like the theory of evolution, which is hypothesis, supported by overwhelming and continuing scientific evidence. A completely different thing. Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution. That's just another creationist crock.
From: William Clark on 1 Aug 2010 12:57
In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <alangbaker-15E2AB.23062231072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > In article <8bjv3hFufjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > In article <8bj66lFm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:MPG.26be08094943135398a15f(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > And, superstition is more widely believed and adhered to around the > > > > > > world than science. > > > > > > > > > > Ask any baseball player. Golfers too. > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > No, their superstition does not contribute to their ability at the game, > > > > just to how they calm their nerves. > > > > > > It's belief. I didn't claim there was in validity. It's a shot in the > > > dark, like atheistic evolution. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > LOL > > > > Evolution is not atheistic or theistic, Greg. It simply is. > > Evolution is a theory. Supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. |