info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
(OT) Tweet from yesterday
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian W Lawrence
Jun 4, 2017, 9:40:58 AM6/4/17
to
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 14 hours ago
Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the U. K.,
we will be there - WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!
A tweet that I have no problem with. Makes a change.
I won't comment on this morning's twitterings though.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the U. K.,
we will be there - WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!
A tweet that I have no problem with. Makes a change.
I won't comment on this morning's twitterings though.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Bharath Purohit
Jun 4, 2017, 10:59:09 AM6/4/17
to
~~~~
Sent from my MacBook Air
The Iceberg
Jun 4, 2017, 1:46:09 PM6/4/17
to
Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
Brian W Lawrence
Jun 4, 2017, 2:39:05 PM6/4/17
to
On 04/06/2017 15:59, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> Brian , Rafa has lost only 20 games in first 4 matches of this year's FO , is this a record of some kind?
I can't answer without a lot of research I'm afraid.
> Brian , Rafa has lost only 20 games in first 4 matches of this year's FO , is this a record of some kind?
I have a couple of Wimbledon books that might give me clues about fewest
games lost. Several players won the title without losing a set for example.
In the womens singles at Wimbledon Suzanne Lenglen had some remarkable
stats.
1919 R1 lost 1 game, R2 lost 3, R3 lost 1, QF lost 1, SF lost 9, F lost
2 - total games lost = 17
1923 R2 0, R3 3, R4 1, QF 3, SF 0, F 4 - total lost 11
In 1924 she lost 0 games before the QF (3 rounds), lost 14 to Bunny Ryan
in the QF and then had to withdraw from the tournament.
In 1925 her opponent withdrew in R1 before she lost 3 games on the way
into the SF, won 6-0, 6-0 in the semi and 6-2, 6-0 in the final (5 games
lost).
In 1926 she lost only 9 games in the first two rounds before withdrawing.
I DO realise those matches were all best of 3.
She also won the title in 1920, 21 & 22, but only played the Challenge
Round.
The men who won Wimbledon without losing a set were:
1938 Don Budge 21-0 games 129-48
1955 Tony Trabert 21-0 131-60
1963 Chuck McKinley 21-0 140-82
1976 Bjorn Borg 21-0 133-70
In addition in 1947 Jack Kramer lost one set while winning the title,
21 sets to 1, but lost fewer games - 130-37
Budge had lost 29 games after 4 matches
Trabert had lost 30
McKinley had lost 46
Borg had lost 36
and Kramer had lost 19 <--- fewer than Rafa
Back to the ladies:
Chris Evert won the US Open in 1976 losing only 12 games
Martina Navratilova won the USO in 1983 losing 19
Steffi Graf won at RG in 1988 losing 20
Almost as an afterthought I checked the RG website, where I found
this,
"The triumph, carved out in a trouble-free one hour and 50 minutes,
meant that Nadal, yet to even be remotely threatened in a single set
here, has now dropped just 20 games in four matches en route to the
quarters.
That’s not quite as astonishing as the 19 he gave up on reaching this
same stage here in 2012 but it surely tells of a man playing perhaps
nearly as well as ever into his fourth decade."
QED
Brian W Lawrence
Jun 4, 2017, 2:49:51 PM6/4/17
to
On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates', and almost no
> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
whether they are or not.
Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'. Now it's heading for the Supreme
Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
tweet yesterday?
"Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
bob
Jun 4, 2017, 2:59:26 PM6/4/17
to
On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:49:47 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
<brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:
>On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
>
>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>
>Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates', and almost no
>country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
>problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
>whether they are or not.
>
>Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
>appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
it was "rejected by courts" because a judge with an opposing political
<brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:
>On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
>
>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>
>Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates', and almost no
>country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
>problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
>whether they are or not.
>
>Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
>appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
view heard the case.
brian, the usa is a divided nation right now. we're not 1 america
anymore unfortunately. sooner you realize that, sooner you'll
understand what's going on.
> Now it's heading for the Supreme
>Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
>'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
>tweet yesterday?
>We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
>back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
if a pro trump judge (or court) heard the case, it's a ban. if not,
>back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
it'll be "unconstitutional."
judges are just as biased in many cases as the press.
bob
*skriptis
Jun 4, 2017, 3:30:03 PM6/4/17
to
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
>and almost no
> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
> whether they are or not.
Use common sense? Has rationalism been abolished in the west or what?
How do you know a typical Spanish player will excell on clay far
more than some US player?
> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
Correct. Social justice warriors in judiciary, media, legislature,
all conspired against him. You correctly point out it was not a
Muslim but they distorted its meaning to bring it down and to
attack the president.
>Now it's heading for the Supreme
> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
> tweet yesterday?
>
> "Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
what would I pick and say.
I certainly wouldn't say anything ridiculous as that Canadian
bafoon Trudeau "if you kill terrorists, they win".
How come the media are not mocking the idiot? His degeneracy is on
pair with those of EU leaders.
Imagine, if you kill someone who wants to kill you, you lost.
That would be too ridiculous even for any comedy show that
explores irony and sarcasm.
Sick.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
>
>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>
> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates',
Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
>
>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>
> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates',
countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
>and almost no
> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
> whether they are or not.
How do you know a typical Spanish player will excell on clay far
more than some US player?
> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
all conspired against him. You correctly point out it was not a
Muslim but they distorted its meaning to bring it down and to
attack the president.
>Now it's heading for the Supreme
> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
> tweet yesterday?
>
>
> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
> back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>
> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
It's either being "stupid and alive" or "smart and dead". I know
> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
> back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>
> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
what would I pick and say.
I certainly wouldn't say anything ridiculous as that Canadian
bafoon Trudeau "if you kill terrorists, they win".
How come the media are not mocking the idiot? His degeneracy is on
pair with those of EU leaders.
Imagine, if you kill someone who wants to kill you, you lost.
That would be too ridiculous even for any comedy show that
explores irony and sarcasm.
Sick.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis
Jun 4, 2017, 3:30:03 PM6/4/17
to
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
> On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
>
>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>
> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates',
>
>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>
> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates',
Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
>and almost no
> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
> whether they are or not.
> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
> whether they are or not.
Use common sense? Has rationalism been abolished in the west or what?
How do you know a typical Spanish player will excell on clay far
more than some US player?
How do you know a typical Spanish player will excell on clay far
more than some US player?
> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
Correct. Social justice warriors in judiciary, media, legislature,
all conspired against him. You correctly point out it was not a
Muslim but they distorted its meaning to bring it down and to
attack the president.
all conspired against him. You correctly point out it was not a
Muslim but they distorted its meaning to bring it down and to
attack the president.
>Now it's heading for the Supreme
> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
> tweet yesterday?
>
> "Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
> tweet yesterday?
>
>
> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
> back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>
> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
> back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>
> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
It's either being "stupid and alive" or "smart and dead". I know
what would I pick and say.
I certainly wouldn't say anything ridiculous as that Canadian
bafoon Trudeau "if you kill terrorists, they win".
How come the media are not mocking the idiot? His degeneracy is on
pair with those of EU leaders.
Imagine, if you kill someone who wants to kill you, you lost.
That would be too ridiculous even for any comedy show that
explores irony and sarcasm.
what would I pick and say.
I certainly wouldn't say anything ridiculous as that Canadian
bafoon Trudeau "if you kill terrorists, they win".
How come the media are not mocking the idiot? His degeneracy is on
pair with those of EU leaders.
Imagine, if you kill someone who wants to kill you, you lost.
That would be too ridiculous even for any comedy show that
explores irony and sarcasm.
jdeluise
Jun 4, 2017, 5:19:15 PM6/4/17
to
On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:29:08 +0200, *skriptis wrote:
> Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
> countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
> stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
Sounds like an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous source. Typical.
> Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
> countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
> stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
*skriptis
Jun 4, 2017, 6:01:03 PM6/4/17
to
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
How many e.g. Arabs are wandering through the streets of London
and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
Can you take a guess?
Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
But sure, claim their borders are "closed" and it's difficult to
come there.
and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
Can you take a guess?
Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
But sure, claim their borders are "closed" and it's difficult to
come there.
Gracchus
Jun 4, 2017, 6:28:56 PM6/4/17
to
On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 3:01:03 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:29:08 +0200, *skriptis wrote:
> >> Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
> >> countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
> >> stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
> > Sounds like an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous source. Typical.
> How many e.g. Arabs are wandering through the streets of London
> and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
> Can you take a guess?
> Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
Khan was born in the UK. Are you saying he's not British because of his religion or is it his ethnicity? That sounds very racist, skriptis. Have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing?
> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:29:08 +0200, *skriptis wrote:
> >> Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
> >> countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
> >> stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
> > Sounds like an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous source. Typical.
> How many e.g. Arabs are wandering through the streets of London
> and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
> Can you take a guess?
> Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
*skriptis
Jun 4, 2017, 7:30:02 PM6/4/17
to
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Haven't you called whisper Croat and not Australian? If I'm bad
here with Khan, I'm just as bad as you are.
So have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing? Shall we go
together?
But there's a difference. Unlike you, I don't insult individuals
using their ethnicities or insult their physical appearance and
physical marks that are typical of their ethnic and racial
groups.
So I'm not racist, you otoh...yes.
As for this thread, some clueless guy claimed how Britain isn't an
open country. Having so many immigrants and constant influx of
immigrants, in pure numbers, that they, or their descendants even
become mayors of London kinda disapproves the claim.
But yeah, good tactic is to claim anyone who ever enters Britain
is immediately British. That way you could claim Britain very
closed society with no foreigners.
Probably his intent.
here with Khan, I'm just as bad as you are.
So have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing? Shall we go
together?
But there's a difference. Unlike you, I don't insult individuals
using their ethnicities or insult their physical appearance and
physical marks that are typical of their ethnic and racial
groups.
So I'm not racist, you otoh...yes.
As for this thread, some clueless guy claimed how Britain isn't an
open country. Having so many immigrants and constant influx of
immigrants, in pure numbers, that they, or their descendants even
become mayors of London kinda disapproves the claim.
But yeah, good tactic is to claim anyone who ever enters Britain
is immediately British. That way you could claim Britain very
closed society with no foreigners.
Probably his intent.
Gracchus
Jun 4, 2017, 8:06:30 PM6/4/17
to
On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 4:30:02 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >> How many e.g. Arabs are wandering through the streets of London
> >> and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
> >> Can you take a guess?
> >> Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
> > Khan was born in the UK. Are you saying he's not British because of his religion or is it his ethnicity? That sounds very racist, skriptis. Have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing?
> Haven't you called whisper Croat and not Australian? If I'm bad
> here with Khan, I'm just as bad as you are.
> So have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing? Shall we go
> together?
Sure, why not.
> >> and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
> >> Can you take a guess?
> >> Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
> > Khan was born in the UK. Are you saying he's not British because of his religion or is it his ethnicity? That sounds very racist, skriptis. Have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing?
> Haven't you called whisper Croat and not Australian? If I'm bad
> here with Khan, I'm just as bad as you are.
> So have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing? Shall we go
> together?
> But there's a difference. Unlike you, I don't insult individuals
> using their ethnicities or insult their physical appearance and
> physical marks that are typical of their ethnic and racial
> groups.
> So I'm not racist, you otoh...yes.
*skriptis
Jun 5, 2017, 12:01:03 AM6/5/17
to
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 4:30:02 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
>> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>
>> >> How many e.g. Arabs are wandering through the streets of London
>> >> and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
>
>> >> Can you take a guess?
>
>> >> Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
>
>> > Khan was born in the UK. Are you saying he's not British because of his religion or is it his ethnicity? That sounds very racist, skriptis. Have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing?
>
>> Haven't you called whisper Croat and not Australian? If I'm bad
>> here with Khan, I'm just as bad as you are.
>> So have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing? Shall we go
>> together?
>
> Sure, why not.
>
>> But there's a difference. Unlike you, I don't insult individuals
>> using their ethnicities or insult their physical appearance and
>> physical marks that are typical of their ethnic and racial
>> groups.
>
> That thing about sneaky little eyes seems to have really stuck with you. I wonder why.
I always considered it was kinda classless and pointless to insult
> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 4:30:02 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
>> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>
>> >> How many e.g. Arabs are wandering through the streets of London
>> >> and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
>
>> >> Can you take a guess?
>
>> >> Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
>
>> > Khan was born in the UK. Are you saying he's not British because of his religion or is it his ethnicity? That sounds very racist, skriptis. Have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing?
>
>> Haven't you called whisper Croat and not Australian? If I'm bad
>> here with Khan, I'm just as bad as you are.
>> So have you ever been involved in ethnic cleansing? Shall we go
>> together?
>
> Sure, why not.
>
>> But there's a difference. Unlike you, I don't insult individuals
>> using their ethnicities or insult their physical appearance and
>> physical marks that are typical of their ethnic and racial
>> groups.
>
> That thing about sneaky little eyes seems to have really stuck with you. I wonder why.
Nadal due to his looks, and I didn't pay match attention when you
were doing just that. Even though you've been especially nasty in
connecting his looks with supposed personality deficiencies.
Many other players have been bashed around here for their looks,
but no one, not even Raja went that far to connect the looks with
behavior and personality characteristics.
He said Sampras was a hairy ape, but that was no different than
stepenj mocking Graf's nose or Max saying Sharapova is flat
chested. People comment, like different thing, etc. No big deal.
But you are a level above everyone else, you've been attributing
personality traits to Nadal, and also later to Sharapova based on
her typical Russian appearance, both in looks and behavior. We
discussed that several times that if I'm not mistaken. So if
something "got me", that would have been it, as that's the time
when I first engaged you, no?
Remark about Cilic eyes, or mentioning Whisper's background while
discussing movies only came later.
Me mentioning Khan's background when discussing immigration and
identity issues, isn't chauvinism/racism. He's an example of
increased level of openness of British society, something few
trolls claimed it wasn't the case.
Otoh you mentioning Whisper's background during movie discussion
is, like I said, at least weird. As a one off incident, it's not
even noticeable. But there's an extremely long and proven pattern
of your digs at Europeans of all sorts, and linking ethnicity or
physical features with supposed personality flaws.
stephenJ
Jun 5, 2017, 12:05:22 AM6/5/17
to
"travel ban", rather that it is a "Muslim travel ban". There's nothing
wrong with a travel ban vis a vis our 1st amendment, so your comment
would hold merit only of he'd included "Muslim" in the tweet.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gracchus
Jun 5, 2017, 12:19:47 AM6/5/17
to
On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 9:01:03 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > That thing about sneaky little eyes seems to have really stuck with you. I wonder why.
> I always considered it was kinda classless and pointless to insult
> Nadal due to his looks, and I didn't pay match attention when you
> were doing just that. Even though you've been especially nasty in
> connecting his looks with supposed personality deficiencies.
"Supposed"?
> I always considered it was kinda classless and pointless to insult
> Nadal due to his looks, and I didn't pay match attention when you
> were doing just that. Even though you've been especially nasty in
> connecting his looks with supposed personality deficiencies.
> Many other players have been bashed around here for their looks,
> but no one, not even Raja went that far to connect the looks with
> behavior and personality characteristics.
> He said Sampras was a hairy ape, but that was no different than
> stepenj mocking Graf's nose or Max saying Sharapova is flat
> chested. People comment, like different thing, etc. No big deal.
> But you are a level above everyone else, you've been attributing
> personality traits to Nadal, and also later to Sharapova based on
> her typical Russian appearance, both in looks and behavior. We
> discussed that several times that if I'm not mistaken. So if
> something "got me", that would have been it, as that's the time
> when I first engaged you, no?
> Remark about Cilic eyes, or mentioning Whisper's background while
> discussing movies only came later.
> Me mentioning Khan's background when discussing immigration and
> identity issues, isn't chauvinism/racism. He's an example of
> increased level of openness of British society, something few
> trolls claimed it wasn't the case.
> Otoh you mentioning Whisper's background during movie discussion
> is, like I said, at least weird.
> As a one off incident, it's not
> even noticeable. But there's an extremely long and proven pattern
> of your digs at Europeans of all sorts, and linking ethnicity or
> physical features with supposed personality flaws.
Brian W Lawrence
Jun 5, 2017, 4:57:49 AM6/5/17
to
On 04/06/2017 19:59, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:49:47 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
> <brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
>>
>>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>>
>> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates', and almost no
>> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
>> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
>> whether they are or not.
>>
>> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
>> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
>
> it was "rejected by courts" because a judge with an opposing political
> view heard the case.
>
> brian, the usa is a divided nation right now. we're not 1 america
> anymore unfortunately. sooner you realize that, sooner you'll
> understand what's going on.
When was the US ever a united nation?
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:49:47 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
> <brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
>>
>>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>>
>> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates', and almost no
>> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
>> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
>> whether they are or not.
>>
>> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
>> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
>
> it was "rejected by courts" because a judge with an opposing political
> view heard the case.
>
> brian, the usa is a divided nation right now. we're not 1 america
> anymore unfortunately. sooner you realize that, sooner you'll
> understand what's going on.
>> Now it's heading for the Supreme
>> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
>> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
>> tweet yesterday?
>
>> "Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
>> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
>> back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
>
> if a pro trump judge (or court) heard the case, it's a ban. if not,
> it'll be "unconstitutional."
a matter of public record, permissable as evidence in a court.
> judges are just as biased in many cases as the press.
serious trouble. Not that any judge is always neutral, but the Judiciary
is supposed to be exactly that, and they take oaths to be that. The fact
that a significant percentage of Americans distrust the press is also
worrying. A free press is vitally important to any democratic nation,
they may not always get everything right, but it's part of their job
to hold people to account - but it seems that in the US if they do so
it's dismissed as bias, or their all Dems, or all liberals, etc.
Brian W Lawrence
Jun 5, 2017, 5:00:54 AM6/5/17
to
Whisper
Jun 5, 2017, 5:05:49 AM6/5/17
to
Brian W Lawrence
Jun 5, 2017, 6:28:24 AM6/5/17
to
ACLU National @ACLU Jun 3
ACLU National Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Glad we both agree the ban is a ban.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give
us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of
safety!
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence
Jun 5, 2017, 7:03:43 AM6/5/17
to
On 04/06/2017 22:47, *skriptis wrote:
> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:29:08 +0200, *skriptis wrote:
>>
>>> Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
>>> countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
>>> stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
>>
>> Sounds like an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous source. Typical.
>>
>
>
> How many e.g. Arabs are wandering through the streets of London
> and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
>
> Can you take a guess?
London about 350,000, Tokyo about 250,000.
> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:29:08 +0200, *skriptis wrote:
>>
>>> Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
>>> countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
>>> stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.
>>
>> Sounds like an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous source. Typical.
>>
>
>
> How many e.g. Arabs are wandering through the streets of London
> and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
>
> Can you take a guess?
> Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
from Pakistan, though his grandparents lived in Bombay/Mumbai until
partition in 1947. Pre-partition India had over 1,000 different ethnic
groups,
> But sure, claim their borders are "closed" and it's difficult to
> come there.
stephenJ
Jun 5, 2017, 8:14:28 AM6/5/17
to
On 6/5/2017 5:28 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> On 05/06/2017 05:05, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 6/4/2017 1:49 PM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>
>>> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
>>> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'. Now it's heading for the Supreme
>>> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
>>> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
>>> tweet yesterday?
>>>
>>> "Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
>>>
>>> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give
>>> us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>>>
>>> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
>>
>> The problem Trump has had in the courts wasn't the notion that it's a
>> "travel ban", rather that it is a "Muslim travel ban". There's nothing
>> wrong with a travel ban vis a vis our 1st amendment, so your comment
>> would hold merit only of he'd included "Muslim" in the tweet.
>
> And yet others noted it too;
>
> ACLU National @ACLU Jun 3
>
> ACLU National Retweeted Donald J. Trump
>
> Glad we both agree the ban is a ban.
.. and yet they are wrong as well, if by that they mean what you meant.
> On 05/06/2017 05:05, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 6/4/2017 1:49 PM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>
>>> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
>>> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'. Now it's heading for the Supreme
>>> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
>>> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
>>> tweet yesterday?
>>>
>>> "Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
>>>
>>> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give
>>> us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>>>
>>> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
>>
>> The problem Trump has had in the courts wasn't the notion that it's a
>> "travel ban", rather that it is a "Muslim travel ban". There's nothing
>> wrong with a travel ban vis a vis our 1st amendment, so your comment
>> would hold merit only of he'd included "Muslim" in the tweet.
>
> And yet others noted it too;
>
> ACLU National @ACLU Jun 3
>
> ACLU National Retweeted Donald J. Trump
>
> Glad we both agree the ban is a ban.
---
Brian W Lawrence
Jun 5, 2017, 8:40:48 AM6/5/17
to
Are the SC ruling on the Fourth Circuit May 25 ruling only, or could
they overturn the Hawaii case as well? Actually looking at the SC
document it relates to the International Refugee Assistance (4th
Circuit) case only, so the 9th circuit could still uphold the Hawaii vs.
Trump case I assume.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ
Jun 5, 2017, 8:53:23 AM6/5/17
to
court's rulings, and (b) specifically cites today's Trump tweets about
"travel ban" in doing so. From the lower court decisions, the emphasis
has all been about the religious nature of the ban, that it bans
Muslims, not that it's a 'ban' per se.
> Are the SC ruling on the Fourth Circuit May 25 ruling only, or could
> they overturn the Hawaii case as well? Actually looking at the SC
> document it relates to the International Refugee Assistance (4th
> Circuit) case only, so the 9th circuit could still uphold the Hawaii vs.
> Trump case I assume.
the same in both the 4th and 9th circuits, it's extremely unlikely that
the supreme court would carve out a ruling (either for or against Trump)
that pertains to the 4th without also settling the issue before the 9th
as well.
---
stephenJ
Jun 5, 2017, 9:01:54 AM6/5/17
to
>On 6/5/2017 3:57 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 19:59, bob wrote:
>> judges are just as biased in many cases as the press.
>
> Well if you and other Americans believe that I'm afraid you are all in
> serious trouble. Not that any judge is always neutral, but the Judiciary
> is supposed to be exactly that, and they take oaths to be that.
FWIW, all federal officers, including congresspersons and the President,
> On 04/06/2017 19:59, bob wrote:
>> judges are just as biased in many cases as the press.
>
> Well if you and other Americans believe that I'm afraid you are all in
> serious trouble. Not that any judge is always neutral, but the Judiciary
> is supposed to be exactly that, and they take oaths to be that.
take the same Oath of Office, swearing to uphold. protect and defend the
Constitution, as do judges. But all people are biased, the notion that
judges are neutral, particularly on divisive issues, is a 'legal
fiction'. That's why the fight over confirmation is so bitter on both
sides.
IMO, our federal courts wield way too much power. Congress is largely to
blame, as the Constitution actually empowers it to limit the cases the
federal courts can hear, but they don't do that, so in practice, our
federal courts get the final say about lots of things that Congress should.
> The fact
> that a significant percentage of Americans distrust the press is also
> worrying. A free press is vitally important to any democratic nation,
> they may not always get everything right, but it's part of their job
> to hold people to account - but it seems that in the US if they do so
> it's dismissed as bias, or their all Dems, or all liberals, etc.
call the "right-wing bias" of FOX News constantly.
FWIW, this is absolutely nothing new. If you look throughout our
history, all the way back to the 1790s, perceptions by party X regarding
certain newspapers as biased against them/for the other party have
always been loudly voiced, and the Democracy has rolled right along.
That's part of freedom of speech - freedom to distrust the press and
loudly say so.
---
stephenJ
Jun 5, 2017, 9:04:21 AM6/5/17
to
>On 6/5/2017 4:05 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
> He's doing better than 6-2 average per set played.
I'm getting excited at the prospect. A 15th slam to pass Sampras and
>
> He's doing better than 6-2 average per set played.
reignite chasing Fed, and La Decima at the FO?
Would be absolutely massive on all levels. The wild card of course is
injury.
---
bob
Jun 6, 2017, 8:46:09 PM6/6/17
to
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 08:04:17 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On 6/5/2017 4:05 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>>
>> He's doing better than 6-2 average per set played.
>
>I'm getting excited at the prospect. A 15th slam to pass Sampras and
>reignite chasing Fed, and La Decima at the FO?
if only he played a better 5th set at AO. this would be for GOAT.
> >On 6/5/2017 4:05 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>>
>> He's doing better than 6-2 average per set played.
>
>I'm getting excited at the prospect. A 15th slam to pass Sampras and
>reignite chasing Fed, and La Decima at the FO?
bob
bob
Jun 6, 2017, 8:49:19 PM6/6/17
to
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 09:57:48 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
current admin, as it is right now.
try to realize it and you might come around to understanding what's
going on.
>>> Now it's heading for the Supreme
>>> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
>>> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
>>> tweet yesterday?
>>
>>> "Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
>>> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
>>> back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>>> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
>>
>> if a pro trump judge (or court) heard the case, it's a ban. if not,
>> it'll be "unconstitutional."
>
>Did you miss the bit where Trump called it 'a travel ban'? His tweet is
>a matter of public record, permissable as evidence in a court.
did you miss the pt where it doesn't matter what you call it, it is
what it is?
>> judges are just as biased in many cases as the press.
>
>Well if you and other Americans believe that I'm afraid you are all in
>serious trouble.
perhaps we are. judges are insanely biased.
> Not that any judge is always neutral, but the Judiciary
>is supposed to be exactly that,
um, yeah.
> and they take oaths to be that.
oath? lol. and doctors take an oath to first do no harm.
> The fact that a significant percentage of Americans distrust the press is also
>worrying. A free press is vitally important to any democratic nation,
>they may not always get everything right, but it's part of their job
>to hold people to account - but it seems that in the US if they do so
>it's dismissed as bias, or their all Dems, or all liberals, etc.
my gosh, you call this a free press? it's a biased witch hunt.
bob
<brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:
>On 04/06/2017 19:59, bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:49:47 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
>> <brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>>>
>>> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates', and almost no
>>> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
>>> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
>>> whether they are or not.
>>>
>>> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
>>> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
>>
>> it was "rejected by courts" because a judge with an opposing political
>> view heard the case.
>>
>> brian, the usa is a divided nation right now. we're not 1 america
>> anymore unfortunately. sooner you realize that, sooner you'll
>> understand what's going on.
>
>When was the US ever a united nation?
never so evenly split in my lifetime, with the losers hating the
>On 04/06/2017 19:59, bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:49:47 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
>> <brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
>>>
>>> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates', and almost no
>>> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
>>> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
>>> whether they are or not.
>>>
>>> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
>>> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
>>
>> it was "rejected by courts" because a judge with an opposing political
>> view heard the case.
>>
>> brian, the usa is a divided nation right now. we're not 1 america
>> anymore unfortunately. sooner you realize that, sooner you'll
>> understand what's going on.
>
>When was the US ever a united nation?
current admin, as it is right now.
try to realize it and you might come around to understanding what's
going on.
>>> Now it's heading for the Supreme
>>> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
>>> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
>>> tweet yesterday?
>>
>>> "Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
>>> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
>>> back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
>>> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
>>
>> if a pro trump judge (or court) heard the case, it's a ban. if not,
>> it'll be "unconstitutional."
>
>Did you miss the bit where Trump called it 'a travel ban'? His tweet is
>a matter of public record, permissable as evidence in a court.
what it is?
>> judges are just as biased in many cases as the press.
>
>Well if you and other Americans believe that I'm afraid you are all in
>serious trouble.
> Not that any judge is always neutral, but the Judiciary
>is supposed to be exactly that,
> and they take oaths to be that.
> The fact that a significant percentage of Americans distrust the press is also
>worrying. A free press is vitally important to any democratic nation,
>they may not always get everything right, but it's part of their job
>to hold people to account - but it seems that in the US if they do so
>it's dismissed as bias, or their all Dems, or all liberals, etc.
bob
bob
Jun 6, 2017, 8:54:23 PM6/6/17
to
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 13:40:45 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
<brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:
>On 05/06/2017 13:14, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 6/5/2017 5:28 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2017 05:05, stephenJ wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2017 1:49 PM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave
>>>>> the
>>>>> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'. Now it's heading for the Supreme
>>>>> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
>>>>> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
>>>>> tweet yesterday?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
<brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:
>On 05/06/2017 13:14, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 6/5/2017 5:28 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2017 05:05, stephenJ wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2017 1:49 PM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave
>>>>> the
>>>>> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'. Now it's heading for the Supreme
>>>>> Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
>>>>> 'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
>>>>> tweet yesterday?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give
>>>>> us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of
>>>>> safety!"
>>>>>
>>>>> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
>>>>
>>>> The problem Trump has had in the courts wasn't the notion that it's a
>>>> "travel ban", rather that it is a "Muslim travel ban". There's
>>>> nothing wrong with a travel ban vis a vis our 1st amendment, so your
>>>> comment would hold merit only of he'd included "Muslim" in the tweet.
>>>
>>> And yet others noted it too;
>>>
>>> ACLU National? @ACLU Jun 3
>>>>> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give
>>>>> us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of
>>>>> safety!"
>>>>>
>>>>> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
>>>>
>>>> The problem Trump has had in the courts wasn't the notion that it's a
>>>> "travel ban", rather that it is a "Muslim travel ban". There's
>>>> nothing wrong with a travel ban vis a vis our 1st amendment, so your
>>>> comment would hold merit only of he'd included "Muslim" in the tweet.
>>>
>>> And yet others noted it too;
>>>
>>>
>>> ACLU National Retweeted Donald J. Trump
>>>
>>> Glad we both agree the ban is a ban.
>>
>> .. and yet they are wrong as well, if by that they mean what you meant.
>
>That rather remains to be seen.
his travel ban will only be unconstitutional if a biased trump hating
>>> ACLU National Retweeted Donald J. Trump
>>>
>>> Glad we both agree the ban is a ban.
>>
>> .. and yet they are wrong as well, if by that they mean what you meant.
>
>That rather remains to be seen.
judge (of which there are many) hears the case.
i hate to argue with you, but you really don't have a clue of the
anger here.
>Are the SC ruling on the Fourth Circuit May 25 ruling only, or could
>they overturn the Hawaii case as well? Actually looking at the SC
>document it relates to the International Refugee Assistance (4th
>Circuit) case only, so the 9th circuit could still uphold the Hawaii vs.
>Trump case I assume.
0 new messages