From: William Clark on
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

"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
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
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
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