From: Dutch <no@email.com>
Subject: Re: A weak 'President'
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.200.48.241 with SMTP id w46mr16912865qta.18.1520454667627;
Wed, 07 Mar 2018 12:31:07 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!t24no561000qtn.0!news-out.google.com!m4ni20qte.0!nntp.google.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: A weak President
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
References: <17e861cc-43f2-43cc-9af2-a7e8a2e49633@googlegroups.com>
<cMidnVkAq43wXAfHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%LDmC.112133$u94.45826@fx08.iad>
<ILydnY3MIoc_kAbHnZ2dnUU7_8xj4p2d@giganews.com>
<BAFmC.64372$RQ3.25830@fx02.iad>
<04qdnb4Xr8GX3wbHnZ2dnUU7_8xj4p2d@giganews.com>
<3KHmC.80277$s_2.44357@fx42.iad>
<AfmdnfR5C4ircAbHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8UYmC.139492$NZ2.58637@fx40.iad>
<U_adnRrqNOgczQDHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9c55c9c-5b9d-4bbc-ad98-8ab918bd7cd8@googlegroups.com>
<f5idnS42b-GbPwDHnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com>
<G1inC.36489$fQ7.36293@fx13.iad>
<uLadncOEP6vLXQDHnZ2dnUU7_8xj4p2d@giganews.com>
<eQlnC.36280$VM2.21223@fx01.iad>
<RLqdndqo2alVSQLHnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Dutch <no@email.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <RLqdndqo2alVSQLHnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <f_XnC.48375$ma4.15323@fx10.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 20:31:07 UTC
Organization: UsenetServer - www.usenetserver.com
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 12:31:07 -0800
X-Received-Bytes: 5012
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2716918159
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Original-Bytes: 4950
Print Article
Forward Article
On 3/7/2018 4:02 AM, da pickle wrote:
> On 3/5/2018 7:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> On 3/5/2018 2:10 PM, da pickle wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2018 2:47 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2018 12:01 PM, da pickle wrote:
>>>>> On 3/5/2018 1:13 PM, risky biz wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:13:30 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/4/2018 2:43 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2018 4:57 AM, da pickle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The whole subject of the thread is an article about John Brennan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The subject is not *about* John Brennan, that is just another
>>>>>>>> transparent diversion. The subject is the instability of the 
>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>> POTUS, a topic raised by Nicolle Wallace in an interview with 
>>>>>>>> John Brennan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there some other opinion about the President presented in the 
>>>>>>> article
>>>>>>> other than the opinion of John Brennan?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The telling thing here is that you cannot factually refute a single
>>>>>>>> point Brennan makes in the interview, so you choose to attack his
>>>>>>>> credibility. I add numerous points which further illustrate the
>>>>>>>> instability and unsuitability of this president and you attack my
>>>>>>>> credibility. When are you going to wake up and realize that it 
>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>> credibility of your president that matters? When are you going to
>>>>>>>> finally realize that this presidency constitutes a global crisis?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brennan states his opinion.  You apparently agree with his opinion
>>>>>>> without more.  You have not supported your opinion with anything 
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> than your opinion and neither has he.  Everyone knows your opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can safely bet that most Americans recognize John Brennan's 
>>>>>> description of Donald Trump as an accurate description of the 
>>>>>> behavior they can see themselves. Your brilliant idea that this 
>>>>>> should be 'balanced' by the input of devotees of Donald Trump who 
>>>>>> choose to ignore his behavior is just silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may think your opinion is the only opinion worth considering, 
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> you could be wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are so biased that you cannot see your own bias any more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are the reflection of those that hated Obama so much that 
>>>>>>> they could
>>>>>>> not see even one thing about his presidency that was worthwhile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your shouted opinion of your opinion does not raise it's validity 
>>>>> at all.  People of faith are always quite sure of their beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Your attempt to reduce the issue down to a matter of political 
>>>> opinions is desperate and unconvincing. A list of startling words 
>>>> and actions by this president in just the past few days has been 
>>>> presented and you have failed to explain or rationalize a single one 
>>>> of them. You can't, they are all inexplicable. All you're doing is 
>>>> throwing up a smokescreen.
>>>
>>> Actions speak louder than words ... you have only words ... your 
>>> faith in your words is commendable.
>>
>> Spare me the platitudes. Pick just one of the recent controversies 
>> coming out of this Whitehouse and we can discuss it rationally. We 
>> could start with the president's suggestion that due process be 
>> suspended when it comes to firearms, or the tariffs, or the military 
>> parade, there are plenty to pick from. Let's get real.
> 
> You just don't know a joke when you hear it ... sarchasm alert!

Concession accepted.