From: William Clark on 10 Feb 2010 10:45 In article <hkuj85$fs8$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.25dc8275430b3b82989b67(a)news.giganews.com... > > In article <hkuckh$4iv$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, no_spam_(a)no_mail.com > > says... > >> > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > >> news:wclark2-595FAF.16061509022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > In article <hks11j$j6i$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > >> > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:wclark2-6A0626.09040209022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> >> > In article <alangbaker-09E570.11121808022010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > >> >> > > >> >> > Number one, you give people a contract with a loophole in. If you > >> >> > are > >> >> > poor, you don't read/understand the fine print, and you can't afford > >> >> > a > >> >> > lawyer. Or. in the case of a legal agreement, you simply harass the > >> >> > renter, and convince them that they do not have legal rights that > >> >> > they > >> >> > actually do. That is a very common tactic, since in many cases the > >> >> > renters do not have access to the kind of legal advice they need. > >> >> > > >> >> > A few typical examples from New Jersey: > >> >> > > >> >> > http://tiny.cc/8LLDQ > >> >> > >> >> A typical Clark cite. Unread and unsupportive of his argument. Very > >> >> scientific. > >> > > >> > Not unsupportive at all. Classic examples of how those with money and > >> > influence can abuse those without. > >> > >> Actually they weren't, but you didn't read them so you missed that. > > > > Maybe he was Googling at the turn from his iPhone and couldn't surf and > > drive the golf cart at the same time. > > He was doing what he always does. Losing the debate. In your dreams.
From: MNMikeW on 10 Feb 2010 10:52 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:9264n5l6besm20bkqla1b1fgmeqcglhgm9(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:02:37 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >>You know Jack, I might be willing to discuss this with Mike, or >>Ketchum, or another conservative, but you, and a couple of others here >>are so inane with the ultra-right messages that I won't waste my time. >>Of all the posts that you've delivered here for instance the one about >>Palin possibly being elected president renders you certifiable insane. >> >>BK > > Right now, the polls show that she's the leading contender for the > Republican nomination. I'd gladly vote for her over Obama. They would be complete fools to run her again.
From: William Clark on 10 Feb 2010 11:30 In article <7tg31iFilgU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:9264n5l6besm20bkqla1b1fgmeqcglhgm9(a)4ax.com... > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:02:37 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > >>You know Jack, I might be willing to discuss this with Mike, or > >>Ketchum, or another conservative, but you, and a couple of others here > >>are so inane with the ultra-right messages that I won't waste my time. > >>Of all the posts that you've delivered here for instance the one about > >>Palin possibly being elected president renders you certifiable insane. > >> > >>BK > > > > Right now, the polls show that she's the leading contender for the > > Republican nomination. I'd gladly vote for her over Obama. > > They would be complete fools to run her again. Well, we agree on something :-)
From: John B. on 10 Feb 2010 11:42 On Feb 10, 6:24 am, "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b676f2ea-2c5e-40da-b895-7ed9c6ae2443(a)g27g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 9, 3:45 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:e34e35e6-da6b-43e1-84a2-4f08e184fe62(a)v36g2000vbs.googlegroups.com.... > > On Feb 8, 10:42 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > > On 8-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You don't know that. Neither do the Tea Partiers and neither do I. If > > > > Obama hadn't done the things he did to rescue the economy and end the > > > > recesssion (which has ended) we could be in a severe depression now.. > > > > Nobody on the right seems to want to consider that. > > > > As usual you show a less than stellar grasp on basic economics. Nothing > > > that > > > was done, with the exception of easing the liquidity problems of late > > > 09-early10 has done anything to keep us out of a depression. And much of > > > what was done was a wash at best. The single worst aspect of all this > > > "action" is that it has made businesses gun shy. They don't want to > > > invest > > > or hire when the loonies in DC could change the rules again in > > > midstream. > > > > -- > > > bill-o > > > So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the > > economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of > > 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010? > > ***************************************************** > > > I see you ignored my reply and now you want to move the goal posts. Tsk > > Tsk > > I didn't see your reply and I wasn't talking to you, anyway. > ******************************************** > > ... but you did move the goal posts. Gottcha. I have no idea what you're talking about.
From: bknight on 10 Feb 2010 11:46
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:42:41 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 10, 6:24�am, "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote: >> ... but you did move the goal posts. �Gottcha. > >I have no idea what you're talking about. Then you have something in common with him. :-) BK |