Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 15 Feb 2010 10:54 On Feb 13, 12:28 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > In article > <b19f4efa-7bb1-4b8f-a32b-cda057bc9...(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > On Feb 13, 10:39 am, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > > wrote: > > > In article > > > <5e353fb8-3c85-4195-9a10-94a54f990...(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 11:32 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > > > > state.edu> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <3cebfbd0-3631-4c3a-a13d-daa58a9cd...(a)q27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 12, 11:12 am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > > > > > On 12-Feb-2010, William Clark > > > > > > > <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Oh, bullshit, Jack. We've been over that again and again - > > > > > > > > > >he's as > > > > > > > > > >dumb > > > > > > > > > > >as paint. > > > > > > > > > > I can't wait to see your Yale degree or your Harvard degree. > > > > > > > > > Actually, it's from Oxford. Game, set, and match. > > > > > > > > it is a piece of paper & will not substitute for wisdom or > > > > > > > character. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > bill-o > > > > > > > Oxford is no big deal anyways. 3 years to get a Ph.D. You go to a > > > > > > lecture now and then and write some sort of paper at the end of the > > > > > > year and if the good ole boys like it, you advance. Totally lame, and > > > > > > outdated, at least in science. An Ohio State Ph.D. in science > > > > > > prepares > > > > > > you 1000X better than does Oxford. > > > > > > Of course. Except that Oxford doesn't give Ph. Ds, it gives D. Phils. > > > > > Can't expect you to know that, though, just like your "materials > > > > > science" journal publications. You are a self proclaimed expert on > > > > > everything, and master of nothing. > > > > > I suppose you need BS like that to fall back on when all else has > > > > been lost! No doubt they don't give B.Sc's either, they give "Science > > > > Baccalaureates"! > > > > Dino, this is simply pathetic - even for you. > > > Really? Again, if that sort of BS is all you got to fall back on, you > > are the one who is pathetic. I'm not claiming anything other than > > Oxford is, and has been no big deal in science for quite some time, > > which is a fact to me. > > Well, that might warrant a rebuttal if it came from a scientist, but > from someone with no funded research and only eight "publications", it > is like having a gnat land on your neck. Swatted away in a second. Sad > again. You don't have to be a scientist in any sense to see the tremendous decline in Oxford...you, for example.....
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 15 Feb 2010 10:55 On Feb 13, 12:29 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > In article > <de2e5548-0783-4608-a88a-d906c877b...(a)36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > On Feb 13, 11:05 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:18:11 -0600, Moderate wrote: > > > > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > > >news:4b7497cf$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:19:44 -0800, dene wrote: > > > >>> <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > > >>>news:heu8n5t5m6bopoc55sburstujj9897ii1t(a)4ax.com... > > > >>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:31:23 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > > >>>> <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > >>>> You're kidding. Biden wasted Palin in debate, and he's a > > > >>>> lightweight. She's a joke that is riding a wave of simple minds. > > > > >>> In your dreams. Palin did just fine with Blabben. > > > > >> She was drilled night and day going into the debate and managed to > > > >> repeat a bunch of memorized sound bites, mostly without embarrassing > > > >> herself. It's not like she did well. > > > > > Well I guess that qualifies her to be President. Obama is nothing > > > > more than a talking head. He is the Commander in Chief, yet he > > > > doesn't know what a Corpsman is. > > > > Watch the recent live unscripted debate between Obama and the GOP. > > > Debate? A debate has a form, that was one person asking a question, > > another replying and then moving on to some other question. Hardly a > > debate. In that form there is no viewpoint expressed other than that > > of the person answering the questions. A joke maybe, but no debate. > > Then how come SarahQuitter couldn't manage even a scripted Q&A without > scrawling notes on her palm like some 3rd grader? What does anything anyone else do have to do with Obama's presentation style? It is what it is regardless. Can't you focus at all?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 15 Feb 2010 10:58 On Feb 13, 7:35 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:02:22 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >If you look at spending in 2006 and compare it to now? People are > >really scared that the govt is destroying the economy. Now if the dems > >would say, for example, the economy is sufficiently recovered that we > >do not have to spend the 500 billion of the stimulus that is unspent, > >and not propose any other sort of govt spending program, they would be > >OK, but as we all know, they won't do this. > > >Thus even people like Fiengold, who should be golden, and Gillibrand, > >who should be OK, are are on the table, and if they go, the dems could > >lose a lot more than 7 in the senate, and the house could be a > >bloodbath. > > It would be best if the Democrats lose seats in both Houses of > Congress but not enough to take control. A repeat of what happened in > 1994 would make it more likely that Obama will be re-elected. Besides, > even if the Republicans took over they couldn't do anything because of > the filibuster and Obama's veto. > > So it's best if the Republicans pick up five to seven seats in the > Senate to insure that the Democrats never get 60 votes on any > objectionable legislation (the current 41 seats is a bit precarious) > and finish the job in 2012. You are probably right about that. However, Obama is probably unelectable right now, which is not a good thing, IMHO. He has, unfortunately, made himself the essence of the old joke about the light at the end of the tunnel being taken out of service until further notice. He is our Herbert Hoover.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 15 Feb 2010 11:01 On Feb 15, 10:22 am, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > > news:clark-C8DC8A.09483015022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > In article <hlbhvm$og...(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:8aa022fe-a1f8-4dab-9e6f-f5117a10e0bb(a)f8g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > >> On Feb 12, 5:39 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > >> state.edu> wrote: > >> > In article <hl4fqq$ht...(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > > >> > No, Tancredo's remark was about ways of denying minorities the vote. > > >> No, Mod's right. Tancredo said Obama owed his election to people who > >> couldn't read or write. I had no idea that illiterates made up 52% of > >> eligible voters! Learn something new every day. > > >> ****************************************************** > > >> Of course I am right. Clark is an idiot. > > > And you are clearly incapable of rational extrapolation. If you can't > > see through the code, then you are even thicker than I thought. > > You have lost your mind. Lost?
From: MNMikeW on 15 Feb 2010 12:18
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-C8DC8A.09483015022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <hlbhvm$ogd$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:8aa022fe-a1f8-4dab-9e6f-f5117a10e0bb(a)f8g2000vba.googlegroups.com... >> On Feb 12, 5:39 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- >> state.edu> wrote: >> > In article <hl4fqq$ht...(a)speranza.aioe.org>, >> > >> > No, Tancredo's remark was about ways of denying minorities the vote. >> >> No, Mod's right. Tancredo said Obama owed his election to people who >> couldn't read or write. I had no idea that illiterates made up 52% of >> eligible voters! Learn something new every day. >> >> ****************************************************** >> >> Of course I am right. Clark is an idiot. > > And you are clearly incapable of rational extrapolation. If you can't > see through the code, then you are even thicker than I thought. The code, LOL! |