From: risky biz <>
Subject: Re: A weak 'President'
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id 124mr8595206qkj.55.1520180545906;
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 08:22:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id g33mr1320091vki.13.1520180545732; Sun,
04 Mar 2018 08:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 08:22:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=6E1tdAoAAACWr5r8rFNJ0awN-fczz4Uf
References: <>
<> <%LDmC.112133$u94.45826@fx08.iad>
<> <BAFmC.64372$RQ3.25830@fx02.iad>
<> <3KHmC.80277$s_2.44357@fx42.iad>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: A weak President
From: risky biz <>
Injection-Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 16:22:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3533558604
X-Received-Bytes: 3361
Print Article
Forward Article
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 4:57:35 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
> On 3/3/2018 7:12 PM, Dutch wrote:
> > On 3/3/2018 4:47 PM, da pickle wrote:
> >> You complain when risky just changes the subject ... then you do it 
> >> yourself ... very much like Jerry.
> > 
> > The "subject" of this thread if you just look above, is "A weak 
> > 'President'", my response is apropos of that. Your response was to 
> > change the subject to an irrelevant article on John Brennan. If YOU want 
> > to stay on topic, refute some of the points that have been made that 
> > show Trump to be a weak president.
> The whole subject of the thread is an article about John Brennan, Dutch.
> Now, you want to say that the article is irrelevant ... it is the ONLY 
> subject.
> The whole thing was about whether Brennan has any credibility at all ... 
> "the points" were made by John Brennan.
> But everything is OK ... risky has started a new thread about Trump 
> being a "weak president" that does not rely on John Brennan ... have fun 
> there too.

Even you are insightful enough, 'pickle', to realize there is a deep reservoir of material
illustrating why Donald Trump is a weak 'President'.

> [If you want to actually make a point here, you might start by learning 
> who John Brennan is and why he might be saying the things that he said.]

Why don't you give the world your opinion of why John Brennan 'might be saying the things that he
said', 'pickle'? Explain why what he said is anything other than accurately descriptive of this weak

> And while you are at it, you might actually say why you agree with BillB 
> about how the founders of Canada should not be discussed in school 
> because they were MORONS.
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.