On Oct 17, 2024 at 9:31:09 AM MST, "-hh" wrote <vere4d$2q4h9$1@dont-email.me>:

> On 10/17/24 10:38 AM, Scout wrote:
>> "-hh" wrote:
>>> On 10/16/24 5:20 PM, troll Pierre Delecto Romney wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> Harris isn't in the Senate anymore. And even from her time there,
>>>>> she was representing California, one of the most progressive States
>>>>> in the USA
>>>>
>>>> The MOST failed state in this nation.
>>>
>>> Failed...except for how California is the world's 5th largest economy.
>>
>> Great, and China is the 2nd largest economy..
>
> Behind the USA, of which California is 14%.
>
>> Should that be our model for human rights, freedom or even Carbon
>> Emissions?
>>
>> China - 3rd worst for human rights
>> China - among the worst abusers or personal freedom
>> China - worst carbon emissions of any nation having more than the next 3
>> combined.
>
> Unfortunately, you can't claim that CA is a failed state by trying to
> pivot from economics to something else to draw a false equivalency.
> Particularly since you know that CA is more progressive than much of the
> USA, both environmentally and socially...and STILL does well with GDP.
>
> And China recognizes that they have pollution problems, which is why
> they've become the world leader in solar PV deployment, high speed rail,
> and nuclear power construction.

I wish the US would do more here.
>
> And why were you silent on Germany & Japan (#3 and #4)?
>
>> Sorry, but having a large economy.. isn't really a good measure of what
>> is a good place to live in or to emulate.
>
> GDP is merely an easy & irrefutable metric to rub your nose in, since no
> one forced you to be so conveniently vague on your "failed state" claim.
>
> -hh

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <67114138$0$1785$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 9:31:09 AM MST, "-hh" wrote <vere4d$2q4h9$1@dont-email.me>:
>
> > On 10/17/24 10:38 AM, Scout wrote:
> >> "-hh" wrote:
> >>> On 10/16/24 5:20 PM, troll Pierre Delecto Romney wrote:
> >>>> -hh wrote:
> >>>>> Harris isn't in the Senate anymore. And even from her time there,
> >>>>> she was representing California, one of the most progressive States
> >>>>> in the USA
> >>>>
> >>>> The MOST failed state in this nation.
> >>>
> >>> Failed...except for how California is the world's 5th largest economy.
> >>
> >> Great, and China is the 2nd largest economy..
> >
> > Behind the USA, of which California is 14%.
> >
> >> Should that be our model for human rights, freedom or even Carbon
> >> Emissions?
> >>
> >> China - 3rd worst for human rights
> >> China - among the worst abusers or personal freedom
> >> China - worst carbon emissions of any nation having more than the next 3
> >> combined.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you can't claim that CA is a failed state by trying to
> > pivot from economics to something else to draw a false equivalency.
> > Particularly since you know that CA is more progressive than much of the
> > USA, both environmentally and socially...and STILL does well with GDP.
> >
> > And China recognizes that they have pollution problems, which is why
> > they've become the world leader in solar PV deployment, high speed rail,
> > and nuclear power construction.
>
> I wish the US would do more here.

Drill baby drill.
> >
> > And why were you silent on Germany & Japan (#3 and #4)?
> >
> >> Sorry, but having a large economy.. isn't really a good measure of what
> >> is a good place to live in or to emulate.
> >
> > GDP is merely an easy & irrefutable metric to rub your nose in, since no
> > one forced you to be so conveniently vague on your "failed state" claim.
> >
> > -hh

On Oct 17, 2024 at 10:11:51 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<67114542$2$3827$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <67114138$0$1785$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 9:31:09 AM MST, "-hh" wrote <vere4d$2q4h9$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> On 10/17/24 10:38 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>> "-hh" wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/24 5:20 PM, troll Pierre Delecto Romney wrote:
>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> Harris isn't in the Senate anymore. And even from her time there,
>>>>>>> she was representing California, one of the most progressive States
>>>>>>> in the USA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The MOST failed state in this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Failed...except for how California is the world's 5th largest economy.
>>>>
>>>> Great, and China is the 2nd largest economy..
>>>
>>> Behind the USA, of which California is 14%.
>>>
>>>> Should that be our model for human rights, freedom or even Carbon
>>>> Emissions?
>>>>
>>>> China - 3rd worst for human rights
>>>> China - among the worst abusers or personal freedom
>>>> China - worst carbon emissions of any nation having more than the next 3
>>>> combined.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, you can't claim that CA is a failed state by trying to
>>> pivot from economics to something else to draw a false equivalency.
>>> Particularly since you know that CA is more progressive than much of the
>>> USA, both environmentally and socially...and STILL does well with GDP.
>>>
>>> And China recognizes that they have pollution problems, which is why
>>> they've become the world leader in solar PV deployment, high speed rail,
>>> and nuclear power construction.
>>
>> I wish the US would do more here.
>
> Drill baby drill.

We have the highest production ever. Try to learn what is going on. LOL!
>>>
>>> And why were you silent on Germany & Japan (#3 and #4)?
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but having a large economy.. isn't really a good measure of what
>>>> is a good place to live in or to emulate.
>>>
>>> GDP is merely an easy & irrefutable metric to rub your nose in, since no
>>> one forced you to be so conveniently vague on your "failed state" claim.
>>>
>>> -hh

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vere4d$2q4h9$1@dont-email.me...
> On 10/17/24 10:38 AM, Scout wrote:
>> "-hh" wrote:
>>> On 10/16/24 5:20 PM, troll Pierre Delecto Romney wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> Harris isn't in the Senate anymore. And even from her time there, she
>>>>> was representing California, one of the most progressive States in the
>>>>> USA
>>>>
>>>> The MOST failed state in this nation.
>>>
>>> Failed...except for how California is the world's 5th largest economy.
>>
>> Great, and China is the 2nd largest economy..
>
> Behind the USA, of which California is 14%.

Yea, and just because you have a large economy does not make you good.

>
>> Should that be our model for human rights, freedom or even Carbon
>> Emissions?
>> China - 3rd worst for human rights
>> China - among the worst abusers or personal freedom
>> China - worst carbon emissions of any nation having more than the next 3
>> combined.
>
> Unfortunately, you can't claim that CA is a failed state by trying to
> pivot from economics to something else to draw a false equivalency.

Well, you tried to pivot by claiming since CA had such a great economy it
wasn't a failed state.

So.. if the economy makes it so you aren't a failed state.. then China
should be one of the best countries going behind the US.

> Particularly since you know that CA is more progressive than much of the
> USA, both environmentally and socially...and STILL does well with GDP.

'you can't claim that CA isn't a failed state by trying to pivot from
economics to something else to draw a false equivalency'

If it is all about economics as you asserted.. then China is a wonderful
nation with all your highest ideals.

-hh wrote:
> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
>
>
> -hh

Yours seems to be treason - pay well?

--
⛨ 🥐🥖🗼🤪

-hh wrote:
> GDP is merely an easy & irrefutable metric to rub your nose in

Real cost of living numbers will see you and your leftarded DemonCraps
gone as a viable party real soon.

Enjoy the red wave, you asshole.
--
⛨ 🥐🥖🗼🤪

On 10/17/24 12:36 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>
>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/16/24 6:10 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <6710329b$1$2385545$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
>>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
>>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mad?
>>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
>>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
>>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
>>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
>>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
>>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
>>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
>>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
>>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
>>>>>>>>> Case in point:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
>>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
>>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
>>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
>>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine. Or Israel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was better off when Trump was in office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By what measure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He and his handlers found out rather quickly that people were not buying
>>>>>>>>>> that message so he stopped promoting it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or...that was Biden's message and since he's no longer running, Harris
>>>>>>>>> has emphasized different top messaging points.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Biden/Harris administration will go down in history as the worst
>>>>>>>>>> administration ever, even topping Jimmy Carter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And why was Carter so bad in your eyes? Inflation again, but this time
>>>>>>>>> from Nixon/Ford? Are you old enough to remember the GOP's "WIN" (Whip
>>>>>>>>> Inflation Now) campaign and wage freezes? How did those real wages
>>>>>>>>> catch up?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wages have not come close to keeping close with productivity. Used to be a CEO
>>>>>>>> made 40x the average worker. Now it is several hundred times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The CEO:worker pay ratio shows the increasing wealth concentration at
>>>>>> the top, which is decreasing the prosperity of the US middle class, for
>>>>>> higher CEO pay means less for the rank & file, which is why more middle
>>>>>> class households are failing instead of rising up. It is the inevitable
>>>>>> outcome of the GOP's "Trickle-Down" economics starting from Reagan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> I couls afford to do stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what you're saying is that you lost your job due to CoVid?
>>>>
>>>> Or are you saying that you've not gotten raises, either because your
>>>> employer has not been kept up with the national average for wage
>>>> increases, or didn't think you were worth paying more?
>>>>
>>>> Or did you (or spouse) retire, so your income has dropped from that?
>>>>
>>>> Or are you just complaining that you're getting old and can't physically
>>>> go out boozing every weekend? /s
>>>>
>>>> YMMV, but my hourly rate has soared, such that I don't need to work long
>>>> hours anymore.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Crime wasn't as bad.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting claim, because National crime statistics show that most
>>>> crime rates have continued to go down, despite the public's false
>>>> perception that things aren't getting better:
>>>>
>>>> "Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and
>>>> 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated
>>>> assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)."
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/>
>>>>
>>>> TL;DR: half as bad as it used to be.
>>>>
>>>> Thus said, there have been changes in opportunistic nonviolent property
>>>> theft, such as stealing FedEx deliveries, washing checks stolen from the
>>>> mail, etc, but property crime still been trending down over time:
>>>>
>>>> "The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property crime rate
>>>> between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates of burglary
>>>> (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) and motor vehicle theft (-53%)."
>>>>
>>>> -Ibid
>>>>
>>>> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse": is it merely your
>>>> personal perception? Or true for just your highly localized region?
>>>> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> Moron.
>>
>> Translation: Nailed It.
>>
>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?

On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> In article <67114138$0$1785$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 9:31:09 AM MST, "-hh" wrote <vere4d$2q4h9$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>> > On 10/17/24 10:38 AM, Scout wrote:
>> >> "-hh" wrote:
>> >>> On 10/16/24 5:20 PM, troll Pierre Delecto Romney wrote:
>> >>>> -hh wrote:
>> >>>>> Harris isn't in the Senate anymore. And even from her time there,
>> >>>>> she was representing California, one of the most progressive States
>> >>>>> in the USA
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The MOST failed state in this nation.
>> >>>
>> >>> Failed...except for how California is the world's 5th largest economy.
>> >>
>> >> Great, and China is the 2nd largest economy..
>> >
>> > Behind the USA, of which California is 14%.
>> >
>> >> Should that be our model for human rights, freedom or even Carbon
>> >> Emissions?
>> >>
>> >> China - 3rd worst for human rights
>> >> China - among the worst abusers or personal freedom
>> >> China - worst carbon emissions of any nation having more than the next 3
>> >> combined.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, you can't claim that CA is a failed state by trying to
>> > pivot from economics to something else to draw a false equivalency.
>> > Particularly since you know that CA is more progressive than much of the
>> > USA, both environmentally and socially...and STILL does well with GDP.
>> >
>> > And China recognizes that they have pollution problems, which is why
>> > they've become the world leader in solar PV deployment, high speed rail,
>> > and nuclear power construction.
>>
>> I wish the US would do more here.
>
> Drill baby drill.

Indeed.

Additionally China is build coal plants as fast as they can.
Wonder why that is.
duh.

<https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/China-Keeps-Building
-Coal-Capacity-Abroad-Despite-Pledge-to-Stop.html>

<https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/energy/china-new-coal-plants-climate-
report-intl-hnk/index.html/>

The libbys are so gullible.
See Iran nuke Deal for more examples of that.

--
pothead
Kama Lama Ding Dong is the long lost sister of
Rama Lama Ding Dong

On 10/17/24 12:44 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vere4d$2q4h9$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/17/24 10:38 AM, Scout wrote:
>>> "-hh" wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/24 5:20 PM, troll Pierre Delecto Romney wrote:
>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>> Harris isn't in the Senate anymore.  And even from her time there,
>>>>>> she was representing California, one of the most progressive
>>>>>> States in the USA
>>>>>
>>>>> The MOST failed state in this nation.
>>>>
>>>> Failed...except for how California is the world's 5th largest economy.
>>>
>>> Great, and China is the 2nd largest economy..
>>
>> Behind the USA, of which California is 14%.
>
> Yea, and just because you have a large economy does not make you good.

Of course not. Amongst other things is the context of that GDP, which
is why one normalizes by population to find relative prosperity. China
is ~3x the population of the USA, but it is because its GDP per Capita
is so low ... roughly ~1/6th that of the USA ($13K vs $83K) ... that
they don't have a comparable amount of prosperity for its population.

>>> Should that be our model for human rights, freedom or even Carbon
>>> Emissions?
>>> China - 3rd worst for human rights
>>> China - among the worst abusers or personal freedom
>>> China - worst carbon emissions of any nation having more than the
>>> next 3 combined.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you can't claim that CA is a failed state by trying to
>> pivot from economics to something else to draw a false equivalency.
>
> Well, you tried to pivot by claiming since CA had such a great economy
> it wasn't a failed state.
>
> So.. if the economy makes it so you aren't a failed state.. then China
> should be one of the best countries going behind the US.

As per GDP per Capita, nope. See above.

>> Particularly since you know that CA is more progressive than much of
>> the USA, both environmentally and socially...and STILL does well with
>> GDP.
>
> 'you can't claim that CA isn't a failed state by trying to pivot from
> economics to something else to draw a false equivalency'
>
> If it is all about economics as you asserted.. then China is a wonderful
> nation with all your highest ideals.

As per GDP per Capita, nope.

And California's metric here is one of the better ones in the USA, at
$104,916 per capita ... and where were you again? Montana, was it?
If so, they're at $66,379, which is ~80% of the $83,347 National
average, and just ~63% of California:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP>

-hh

On 10/17/24 4:26 PM, pothead wrote:
> ...
> Additionally China is build coal plants as fast as they can.
> Wonder why that is.
> duh.

I've already explained the reason why to you guys.

Since you're getting even more senile, re-read the archives.

-hh

On 10/17/24 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
> news:67113d28$1$3620715$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
>> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>
>>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> > In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> >>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> >>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 10/16/24 6:10 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> >>>>> In article <6710329b$1$2385545$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> >>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote >>>>>>
>>> <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?"
>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> that there's
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids
>>> undergo >>>>>>>>>>>> sex change
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in
>>> the >>>>>>>>>> barrel", if you
>>> >>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do:  you know that you're mad because you
>>> >>>>>>>>> can't dispute
>>> >>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger"
>>> >>>>>>>>> instead.  Lame.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> -hh
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Mad?
>>> >>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>> >>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>>> >>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was*
>>> >>>>>>> your
>>> >>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem?  After all, you
>>> did >>>>>>> choose
>>> >>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason.  So if its not you
>>> >>>>>>> being
>>> >>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you
>>> have a >>>>>> signifiant
>>> >>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the
>>> >>>>>>>> world is is
>>> >>>>>>>> saying.
>>> >>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On the contrary:  I find that worldviews are expanded by
>>> using >>>>>>> objective
>>> >>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that
>>> I am >>>>>> somehow
>>> >>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact
>>> remains >>>>>>>> that
>>> >>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and
>>> the >>>>>>>> polls
>>> >>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>>> >>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived?  Or make a mountain out of a
>>> >>>>>>> mole hill?
>>> >>>>>>> Case in point:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that
>>> >>>>>>>> Bidenomics was working.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with
>>> inflation, >>>>>>> we
>>> >>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric,
>>> and >>>>>>> is 102%
>>> >>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle
>>> >>>>>> down. Trump's
>>> >>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor
>>> did >>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine. Or Israel.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I was better off when Trump was in office.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> By what measure?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> He and his handlers found out rather quickly that people
>>> were >>>>>>>> not buying
>>> >>>>>>>> that message so he stopped promoting it.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Or...that was Biden's message and since he's no longer
>>> running, >>>>>>> Harris
>>> >>>>>>> has emphasized different top messaging points.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> The Biden/Harris administration will go down in history as
>>> the >>>>>>>> worst
>>> >>>>>>>> administration ever, even topping Jimmy Carter.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> And why was Carter so bad in your eyes?  Inflation again, but
>>> >>>>>>> this time
>>> >>>>>>> from Nixon/Ford?  Are you old enough to remember the GOP's
>>> "WIN" >>>>>>> (Whip
>>> >>>>>>> Inflation Now) campaign and wage freezes?  How did those real
>>> >>>>>>> wages
>>> >>>>>>> catch up?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Wages have not come close to keeping close with productivity.
>>> Used >>>>>> to be a CEO
>>> >>>>>> made 40x the average worker. Now it is several hundred times.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> So?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The CEO:worker pay ratio shows the increasing wealth
>>> concentration >>>> at
>>> >>>> the top, which is decreasing the prosperity of the US middle
>>> class, >>>> for
>>> >>>> higher CEO pay means less for the rank & file, which is why more
>>> >>>> middle
>>> >>>> class households are failing instead of rising up.  It is the
>>> >>>> inevitable
>>> >>>> outcome of the GOP's "Trickle-Down" economics starting from Reagan.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> -hh
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I couls afford to do stuff.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> So what you're saying is that you lost your job due to CoVid?
>>> >>
>>> >> Or are you saying that you've not gotten raises, either because your
>>> >> employer has not been kept up with the national average for wage
>>> >> increases, or didn't think you were worth paying more?
>>> >>
>>> >> Or did you (or spouse) retire, so your income has dropped from that?
>>> >>
>>> >> Or are you just complaining that you're getting old and can't >>
>>> physically
>>> >> go out boozing every weekend?  /s
>>> >>
>>> >> YMMV, but my hourly rate has soared, such that I don't need to
>>> work >> long
>>> >> hours anymore.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> Crime wasn't as bad.
>>> >>
>>> >> Interesting claim, because National crime statistics show that most
>>> >> crime rates have continued to go down, despite the public's false
>>> >> perception that things aren't getting better:
>>> >>
>>> >> "Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and
>>> >> 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated
>>> >> assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)."
>>> >>
>>> >> <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-
>>> says-about-crime-in-the-us/>
>>> >>
>>> >> TL;DR:  half as bad as it used to be.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thus said, there have been changes in opportunistic nonviolent >>
>>> property
>>> >> theft, such as stealing FedEx deliveries, washing checks stolen
>>> from >> the
>>> >> mail, etc, but property crime still been trending down over time:
>>> >>
>>> >> "The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property
>>> >> crime rate between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates
>>> >> of burglary (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) & motor vehicle theft (-53%)."
>>> >>
>>> >> -Ibid
>>> >>
>>> >> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse":  is it merely
>>> >> your
>>> >> personal perception?  Or true for just your highly localized region?
>>> >> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -hh
>>> >
>>> > Moron.
>>>
>>> Translation:  Nailed It.
>>>
>>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
>
> It keeps him from having to admit it?
>
>

In article <verr9t$2squh$1@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 10/17/24 12:36 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>
> >> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/16/24 6:10 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <6710329b$1$2385545$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
> >>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Mad?
> >>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
> >>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
> >>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
> >>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
> >>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
> >>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
> >>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
> >>>>>>>>>> saying.
> >>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
> >>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
> >>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
> >>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
> >>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
> >>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
> >>>>>>>>> Case in point:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
> >>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
> >>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
> >>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
> >>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine. Or Israel.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was better off when Trump was in office.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By what measure?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He and his handlers found out rather quickly that people were not buying
> >>>>>>>>>> that message so he stopped promoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Or...that was Biden's message and since he's no longer running, Harris
> >>>>>>>>> has emphasized different top messaging points.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The Biden/Harris administration will go down in history as the worst
> >>>>>>>>>> administration ever, even topping Jimmy Carter.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And why was Carter so bad in your eyes? Inflation again, but this time
> >>>>>>>>> from Nixon/Ford? Are you old enough to remember the GOP's "WIN" (Whip
> >>>>>>>>> Inflation Now) campaign and wage freezes? How did those real wages
> >>>>>>>>> catch up?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Wages have not come close to keeping close with productivity. Used to be a CEO
> >>>>>>>> made 40x the average worker. Now it is several hundred times.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The CEO:worker pay ratio shows the increasing wealth concentration at
> >>>>>> the top, which is decreasing the prosperity of the US middle class, for
> >>>>>> higher CEO pay means less for the rank & file, which is why more middle
> >>>>>> class households are failing instead of rising up. It is the inevitable
> >>>>>> outcome of the GOP's "Trickle-Down" economics starting from Reagan.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I couls afford to do stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So what you're saying is that you lost your job due to CoVid?
> >>>>
> >>>> Or are you saying that you've not gotten raises, either because your
> >>>> employer has not been kept up with the national average for wage
> >>>> increases, or didn't think you were worth paying more?
> >>>>
> >>>> Or did you (or spouse) retire, so your income has dropped from that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Or are you just complaining that you're getting old and can't physically
> >>>> go out boozing every weekend? /s
> >>>>
> >>>> YMMV, but my hourly rate has soared, such that I don't need to work long
> >>>> hours anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Crime wasn't as bad.
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting claim, because National crime statistics show that most
> >>>> crime rates have continued to go down, despite the public's false
> >>>> perception that things aren't getting better:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and
> >>>> 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated
> >>>> assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)."
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/>
> >>>>
> >>>> TL;DR: half as bad as it used to be.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thus said, there have been changes in opportunistic nonviolent property
> >>>> theft, such as stealing FedEx deliveries, washing checks stolen from the
> >>>> mail, etc, but property crime still been trending down over time:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property crime rate
> >>>> between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates of burglary
> >>>> (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) and motor vehicle theft (-53%)."
> >>>>
> >>>> -Ibid
> >>>>
> >>>> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse": is it merely your
> >>>> personal perception? Or true for just your highly localized region?
> >>>> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -hh
> >>>
> >>> Moron.
> >>
> >> Translation: Nailed It.
> >>
> >> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
> >>
> >>
> >> -hh
> >
> > I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
>
> Oh, so then what you're really saying is that you failed on your own
> retirement planning to take inflation into account.

In article <vers8u$2squh$3@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 10/17/24 4:26 PM, pothead wrote:
> > ...
> > Additionally China is build coal plants as fast as they can.
> > Wonder why that is.
> > duh.
>
> I've already explained the reason why to you guys.
>
> Since you're getting even more senile, re-read the archives.
>
You never explained shit to me. Pothead isn't a guy. Get your shit
straight before you judge.

In article <vert51$2su5u$1@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 10/17/24 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:67113d28$1$3620715$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> >> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
> >> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>
> >>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> > In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> >>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>> >>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> On 10/16/24 6:10 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> >>>>> In article <6710329b$1$2385545$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>> >>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote >>>>>>
> >>> <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?"
> >>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> that there's
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids
> >>> undergo >>>>>>>>>>>> sex change
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in
> >>> the >>>>>>>>>> barrel", if you
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do:  you know that you're mad because you
> >>> >>>>>>>>> can't dispute
> >>> >>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger"
> >>> >>>>>>>>> instead.  Lame.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> Mad?
> >>> >>>>>>>> Hardly.
> >>> >>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
> >>> >>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was*
> >>> >>>>>>> your
> >>> >>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem?  After all, you
> >>> did >>>>>>> choose
> >>> >>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason.  So if its not you
> >>> >>>>>>> being
> >>> >>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you
> >>> have a >>>>>> signifiant
> >>> >>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the
> >>> >>>>>>>> world is is
> >>> >>>>>>>> saying.
> >>> >>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> On the contrary:  I find that worldviews are expanded by
> >>> using >>>>>>> objective
> >>> >>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that
> >>> I am >>>>>> somehow
> >>> >>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact
> >>> remains >>>>>>>> that
> >>> >>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and
> >>> the >>>>>>>> polls
> >>> >>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
> >>> >>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived?  Or make a mountain out of a
> >>> >>>>>>> mole hill?
> >>> >>>>>>> Case in point:
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that
> >>> >>>>>>>> Bidenomics was working.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with
> >>> inflation, >>>>>>> we
> >>> >>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric,
> >>> and >>>>>>> is 102%
> >>> >>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle
> >>> >>>>>> down. Trump's
> >>> >>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor
> >>> did >>>>>> the
> >>> >>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine. Or Israel.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> I was better off when Trump was in office.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> By what measure?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> He and his handlers found out rather quickly that people
> >>> were >>>>>>>> not buying
> >>> >>>>>>>> that message so he stopped promoting it.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> Or...that was Biden's message and since he's no longer
> >>> running, >>>>>>> Harris
> >>> >>>>>>> has emphasized different top messaging points.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> The Biden/Harris administration will go down in history as
> >>> the >>>>>>>> worst
> >>> >>>>>>>> administration ever, even topping Jimmy Carter.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> And why was Carter so bad in your eyes?  Inflation again, but
> >>> >>>>>>> this time
> >>> >>>>>>> from Nixon/Ford?  Are you old enough to remember the GOP's
> >>> "WIN" >>>>>>> (Whip
> >>> >>>>>>> Inflation Now) campaign and wage freezes?  How did those real
> >>> >>>>>>> wages
> >>> >>>>>>> catch up?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Wages have not come close to keeping close with productivity.
> >>> Used >>>>>> to be a CEO
> >>> >>>>>> made 40x the average worker. Now it is several hundred times.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> So?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> The CEO:worker pay ratio shows the increasing wealth
> >>> concentration >>>> at
> >>> >>>> the top, which is decreasing the prosperity of the US middle
> >>> class, >>>> for
> >>> >>>> higher CEO pay means less for the rank & file, which is why more
> >>> >>>> middle
> >>> >>>> class households are failing instead of rising up.  It is the
> >>> >>>> inevitable
> >>> >>>> outcome of the GOP's "Trickle-Down" economics starting from Reagan.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> -hh
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I couls afford to do stuff.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So what you're saying is that you lost your job due to CoVid?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Or are you saying that you've not gotten raises, either because your
> >>> >> employer has not been kept up with the national average for wage
> >>> >> increases, or didn't think you were worth paying more?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Or did you (or spouse) retire, so your income has dropped from that?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Or are you just complaining that you're getting old and can't >>
> >>> physically
> >>> >> go out boozing every weekend?  /s
> >>> >>
> >>> >> YMMV, but my hourly rate has soared, such that I don't need to
> >>> work >> long
> >>> >> hours anymore.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Crime wasn't as bad.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Interesting claim, because National crime statistics show that most
> >>> >> crime rates have continued to go down, despite the public's false
> >>> >> perception that things aren't getting better:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> "Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and
> >>> >> 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated
> >>> >> assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)."
> >>> >>
> >>> >> <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-
> >>> says-about-crime-in-the-us/>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> TL;DR:  half as bad as it used to be.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thus said, there have been changes in opportunistic nonviolent >>
> >>> property
> >>> >> theft, such as stealing FedEx deliveries, washing checks stolen
> >>> from >> the
> >>> >> mail, etc, but property crime still been trending down over time:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> "The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property
> >>> >> crime rate between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates
> >>> >> of burglary (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) & motor vehicle theft (-53%)."
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -Ibid
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse":  is it merely
> >>> >> your
> >>> >> personal perception?  Or true for just your highly localized region?
> >>> >> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -hh
> >>> >
> >>> > Moron.
> >>>
> >>> Translation:  Nailed It.
> >>>
> >>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -hh
> >>
> >> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
> >
> > It keeps him from having to admit it?
> >
> >
>
> Yes, we all noticed how Skeeter's diversion attempt also let him try to
> dodge the crime topic too.

On Oct 17, 2024 at 2:34:23 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<671182ca$0$3829$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <vert51$2su5u$1@dont-email.me>,
> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>
>> On 10/17/24 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:67113d28$1$3620715$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
>>>> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/24 6:10 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <6710329b$1$2385545$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote >>>>>>
>>>>> <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?"
>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> that there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids
>>>>> undergo >>>>>>>>>>>> sex change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in
>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> barrel", if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't dispute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead. Lame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mad?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was*
>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you
>>>>> did >>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you
>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you
>>>>> have a >>>>>> signifiant
>>>>>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> world is is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by
>>>>> using >>>>>>> objective
>>>>>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that
>>>>> I am >>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact
>>>>> remains >>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and
>>>>> the >>>>>>>> polls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> mole hill?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Case in point:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bidenomics was working.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with
>>>>> inflation, >>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric,
>>>>> and >>>>>>> is 102%
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle
>>>>>>>>>>> down. Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor
>>>>> did >>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine. Or Israel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was better off when Trump was in office.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By what measure?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He and his handlers found out rather quickly that people
>>>>> were >>>>>>>> not buying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that message so he stopped promoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or...that was Biden's message and since he's no longer
>>>>> running, >>>>>>> Harris
>>>>>>>>>>>> has emphasized different top messaging points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Biden/Harris administration will go down in history as
>>>>> the >>>>>>>> worst
>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration ever, even topping Jimmy Carter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And why was Carter so bad in your eyes? Inflation again, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> this time
>>>>>>>>>>>> from Nixon/Ford? Are you old enough to remember the GOP's
>>>>> "WIN" >>>>>>> (Whip
>>>>>>>>>>>> Inflation Now) campaign and wage freezes? How did those real
>>>>>>>>>>>> wages
>>>>>>>>>>>> catch up?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wages have not come close to keeping close with productivity.
>>>>> Used >>>>>> to be a CEO
>>>>>>>>>>> made 40x the average worker. Now it is several hundred times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The CEO:worker pay ratio shows the increasing wealth
>>>>> concentration >>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the top, which is decreasing the prosperity of the US middle
>>>>> class, >>>> for
>>>>>>>>> higher CEO pay means less for the rank & file, which is why more
>>>>>>>>> middle
>>>>>>>>> class households are failing instead of rising up. It is the
>>>>>>>>> inevitable
>>>>>>>>> outcome of the GOP's "Trickle-Down" economics starting from Reagan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I couls afford to do stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what you're saying is that you lost your job due to CoVid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or are you saying that you've not gotten raises, either because your
>>>>>>> employer has not been kept up with the national average for wage
>>>>>>> increases, or didn't think you were worth paying more?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or did you (or spouse) retire, so your income has dropped from that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or are you just complaining that you're getting old and can't >>
>>>>> physically
>>>>>>> go out boozing every weekend? /s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YMMV, but my hourly rate has soared, such that I don't need to
>>>>> work >> long
>>>>>>> hours anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Crime wasn't as bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting claim, because National crime statistics show that most
>>>>>>> crime rates have continued to go down, despite the public's false
>>>>>>> perception that things aren't getting better:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and
>>>>>>> 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated
>>>>>>> assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TL;DR: half as bad as it used to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus said, there have been changes in opportunistic nonviolent >>
>>>>> property
>>>>>>> theft, such as stealing FedEx deliveries, washing checks stolen
>>>>> from >> the
>>>>>>> mail, etc, but property crime still been trending down over time:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property
>>>>>>> crime rate between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates
>>>>>>> of burglary (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) & motor vehicle theft (-53%)."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Ibid
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse": is it merely
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> personal perception? Or true for just your highly localized region?
>>>>>>> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: Nailed It.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -hh
>>>>
>>>> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
>>>
>>> It keeps him from having to admit it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we all noticed how Skeeter's diversion attempt also let him try to
>> dodge the crime topic too.
>
> Like Hillary said about the dead soldiers in Benghazi "at this point
> what difference does it make?

In article <67118338$0$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 2:34:23 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <671182ca$0$3829$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> > In article <vert51$2su5u$1@dont-email.me>,
> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>
> >> On 10/17/24 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:67113d28$1$3620715$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> >>>> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/16/24 6:10 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> In article <6710329b$1$2385545$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote >>>>>>
> >>>>> <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?"
> >>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> that there's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids
> >>>>> undergo >>>>>>>>>>>> sex change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in
> >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> barrel", if you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't dispute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead. Lame.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mad?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you
> >>>>> did >>>>>>> choose
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you
> >>>>> have a >>>>>> signifiant
> >>>>>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> world is is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by
> >>>>> using >>>>>>> objective
> >>>>>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that
> >>>>> I am >>>>>> somehow
> >>>>>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact
> >>>>> remains >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and
> >>>>> the >>>>>>>> polls
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mole hill?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Case in point:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bidenomics was working.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with
> >>>>> inflation, >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric,
> >>>>> and >>>>>>> is 102%
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle
> >>>>>>>>>>> down. Trump's
> >>>>>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor
> >>>>> did >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine. Or Israel.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I was better off when Trump was in office.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> By what measure?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He and his handlers found out rather quickly that people
> >>>>> were >>>>>>>> not buying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that message so he stopped promoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or...that was Biden's message and since he's no longer
> >>>>> running, >>>>>>> Harris
> >>>>>>>>>>>> has emphasized different top messaging points.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Biden/Harris administration will go down in history as
> >>>>> the >>>>>>>> worst
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> administration ever, even topping Jimmy Carter.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And why was Carter so bad in your eyes? Inflation again, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this time
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from Nixon/Ford? Are you old enough to remember the GOP's
> >>>>> "WIN" >>>>>>> (Whip
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Inflation Now) campaign and wage freezes? How did those real
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wages
> >>>>>>>>>>>> catch up?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wages have not come close to keeping close with productivity.
> >>>>> Used >>>>>> to be a CEO
> >>>>>>>>>>> made 40x the average worker. Now it is several hundred times.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The CEO:worker pay ratio shows the increasing wealth
> >>>>> concentration >>>> at
> >>>>>>>>> the top, which is decreasing the prosperity of the US middle
> >>>>> class, >>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> higher CEO pay means less for the rank & file, which is why more
> >>>>>>>>> middle
> >>>>>>>>> class households are failing instead of rising up. It is the
> >>>>>>>>> inevitable
> >>>>>>>>> outcome of the GOP's "Trickle-Down" economics starting from Reagan.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I couls afford to do stuff.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So what you're saying is that you lost your job due to CoVid?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or are you saying that you've not gotten raises, either because your
> >>>>>>> employer has not been kept up with the national average for wage
> >>>>>>> increases, or didn't think you were worth paying more?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or did you (or spouse) retire, so your income has dropped from that?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or are you just complaining that you're getting old and can't >>
> >>>>> physically
> >>>>>>> go out boozing every weekend? /s
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> YMMV, but my hourly rate has soared, such that I don't need to
> >>>>> work >> long
> >>>>>>> hours anymore.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Crime wasn't as bad.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Interesting claim, because National crime statistics show that most
> >>>>>>> crime rates have continued to go down, despite the public's false
> >>>>>>> perception that things aren't getting better:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and
> >>>>>>> 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated
> >>>>>>> assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> TL;DR: half as bad as it used to be.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thus said, there have been changes in opportunistic nonviolent >>
> >>>>> property
> >>>>>>> theft, such as stealing FedEx deliveries, washing checks stolen
> >>>>> from >> the
> >>>>>>> mail, etc, but property crime still been trending down over time:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property
> >>>>>>> crime rate between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates
> >>>>>>> of burglary (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) & motor vehicle theft (-53%)."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Ibid
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse": is it merely
> >>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>> personal perception? Or true for just your highly localized region?
> >>>>>>> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Moron.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Translation: Nailed It.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -hh
> >>>>
> >>>> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
> >>>
> >>> It keeps him from having to admit it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, we all noticed how Skeeter's diversion attempt also let him try to
> >> dodge the crime topic too.
> >
> > Like Hillary said about the dead soldiers in Benghazi "at this point
> > what difference does it make?
>
> The quote from Hillary Clinton regarding Benghazi has often been taken out of
> context and misrepresented, so let?s clarify what she actually said and
> address the broader issue:
>
> 1. Context of the Quote
>
> The full quote from Hillary Clinton during a 2013 Senate hearing on Benghazi
> was in response to a question about the changing explanations provided by the
> administration in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Here?s the full
> quote:
>
> ?With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because
> of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided
> they?d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It
> is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it
> from ever happening again.?
>
> In context, she was not dismissing the deaths of the four Americans but rather
> expressing frustration over the political focus on the administration?s early
> characterizations of the attack, rather than the more important issue of
> understanding what went wrong and ensuring such a tragedy wouldn?t be
> repeated.
>
> 2. The Purpose of the Hearing
>
> The hearing was focused on the operational failures that led to the deaths of
> four Americans in Benghazi, not just the public messaging about the event.
> Clinton?s point was that, at that moment, the priority should be on learning
> from the event to prevent future attacks, not on litigating the shifting
> public explanations after the fact.
>
> 3. Investigations and Findings
>
> There were multiple investigations into Benghazi, including bipartisan ones,
> and none found evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or neglect on Clinton?s part
> that directly led to the deaths. Many of the criticisms that followed were
> politically motivated rather than based on factual evidence of malfeasance.
>
> 4. Conclusion
>
> The quote is often used to portray Clinton as callous or indifferent to the
> deaths, but that interpretation doesn?t align with the full context. Her
> response was about moving the focus away from politicizing the event and
> toward understanding the security failures to prevent future loss of life.
>
> So, using this quote to suggest she was dismissive of the deaths in Benghazi
> is a misrepresentation of her actual position during the hearing.

On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:05:19 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<67118a0a$1$3829$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <67118338$0$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 2:34:23 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <671182ca$0$3829$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <vert51$2su5u$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 10/17/24 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:67113d28$1$3620715$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
>>>>>> In article <vere5c$2q4h9$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 9:51 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <ver1fr$2ohqk$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/24 8:27 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <veph2p$2ejus$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/24 6:10 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <6710329b$1$2385545$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote >>>>>>
>>>>>>> <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?"
>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> that there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids
>>>>>>> undergo >>>>>>>>>>>> sex change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in
>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> barrel", if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't dispute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead. Lame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mad?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you
>>>>>>> did >>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you
>>>>>>> have a >>>>>> signifiant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world is is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by
>>>>>>> using >>>>>>> objective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that
>>>>>>> I am >>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact
>>>>>>> remains >>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and
>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> polls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mole hill?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Case in point:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bidenomics was working.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with
>>>>>>> inflation, >>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric,
>>>>>>> and >>>>>>> is 102%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down. Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor
>>>>>>> did >>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine. Or Israel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was better off when Trump was in office.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By what measure?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He and his handlers found out rather quickly that people
>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> not buying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that message so he stopped promoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or...that was Biden's message and since he's no longer
>>>>>>> running, >>>>>>> Harris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has emphasized different top messaging points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Biden/Harris administration will go down in history as
>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> worst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administration ever, even topping Jimmy Carter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why was Carter so bad in your eyes? Inflation again, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Nixon/Ford? Are you old enough to remember the GOP's
>>>>>>> "WIN" >>>>>>> (Whip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inflation Now) campaign and wage freezes? How did those real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catch up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wages have not come close to keeping close with productivity.
>>>>>>> Used >>>>>> to be a CEO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> made 40x the average worker. Now it is several hundred times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The CEO:worker pay ratio shows the increasing wealth
>>>>>>> concentration >>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> the top, which is decreasing the prosperity of the US middle
>>>>>>> class, >>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> higher CEO pay means less for the rank & file, which is why more
>>>>>>>>>>> middle
>>>>>>>>>>> class households are failing instead of rising up. It is the
>>>>>>>>>>> inevitable
>>>>>>>>>>> outcome of the GOP's "Trickle-Down" economics starting from Reagan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I couls afford to do stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what you're saying is that you lost your job due to CoVid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or are you saying that you've not gotten raises, either because your
>>>>>>>>> employer has not been kept up with the national average for wage
>>>>>>>>> increases, or didn't think you were worth paying more?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or did you (or spouse) retire, so your income has dropped from that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or are you just complaining that you're getting old and can't >>
>>>>>>> physically
>>>>>>>>> go out boozing every weekend? /s
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YMMV, but my hourly rate has soared, such that I don't need to
>>>>>>> work >> long
>>>>>>>>> hours anymore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Crime wasn't as bad.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting claim, because National crime statistics show that most
>>>>>>>>> crime rates have continued to go down, despite the public's false
>>>>>>>>> perception that things aren't getting better:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and
>>>>>>>>> 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated
>>>>>>>>> assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TL;DR: half as bad as it used to be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus said, there have been changes in opportunistic nonviolent >>
>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>>> theft, such as stealing FedEx deliveries, washing checks stolen
>>>>>>> from >> the
>>>>>>>>> mail, etc, but property crime still been trending down over time:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property
>>>>>>>>> crime rate between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates
>>>>>>>>> of burglary (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) & motor vehicle theft (-53%)."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Ibid
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what evidence do you have of crime being "worse": is it merely
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> personal perception? Or true for just your highly localized region?
>>>>>>>>> Because on a National macro level, the claim does not ring true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation: Nailed It.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what was your career path before CoVid ruined it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was already retired. What does that have to do with you being a moron?
>>>>>
>>>>> It keeps him from having to admit it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we all noticed how Skeeter's diversion attempt also let him try to
>>>> dodge the crime topic too.
>>>
>>> Like Hillary said about the dead soldiers in Benghazi "at this point
>>> what difference does it make?
>>
>> The quote from Hillary Clinton regarding Benghazi has often been taken out of
>> context and misrepresented, so let?s clarify what she actually said and
>> address the broader issue:
>>
>> 1. Context of the Quote
>>
>> The full quote from Hillary Clinton during a 2013 Senate hearing on Benghazi
>> was in response to a question about the changing explanations provided by the
>> administration in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Here?s the full
>> quote:
>>
>> ?With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because
>> of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided
>> they?d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It
>> is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it
>> from ever happening again.?
>>
>> In context, she was not dismissing the deaths of the four Americans but rather
>> expressing frustration over the political focus on the administration?s early
>> characterizations of the attack, rather than the more important issue of
>> understanding what went wrong and ensuring such a tragedy wouldn?t be
>> repeated.
>>
>> 2. The Purpose of the Hearing
>>
>> The hearing was focused on the operational failures that led to the deaths of
>> four Americans in Benghazi, not just the public messaging about the event.
>> Clinton?s point was that, at that moment, the priority should be on learning
>> from the event to prevent future attacks, not on litigating the shifting
>> public explanations after the fact.
>>
>> 3. Investigations and Findings
>>
>> There were multiple investigations into Benghazi, including bipartisan ones,
>> and none found evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or neglect on Clinton?s part
>> that directly led to the deaths. Many of the criticisms that followed were
>> politically motivated rather than based on factual evidence of malfeasance.
>>
>> 4. Conclusion
>>
>> The quote is often used to portray Clinton as callous or indifferent to the
>> deaths, but that interpretation doesn?t align with the full context. Her
>> response was about moving the focus away from politicizing the event and
>> toward understanding the security failures to prevent future loss of life.
>>
>> So, using this quote to suggest she was dismissive of the deaths in Benghazi
>> is a misrepresentation of her actual position during the hearing.
>
> I watched it. Her body language said it all.

In article <67118ca9$1$2873016$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> > Remember when they asked her if she wiped her hard drive? She said
> > "what? with a cloth or something" Remember that. Explain that one.
>
> That is not relevant.
>
>

It is. She's a cunt.

On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:22:05 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<67118df7$0$3833$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <67118ca9$1$2873016$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>> Remember when they asked her if she wiped her hard drive? She said
>>> "what? with a cloth or something" Remember that. Explain that one.
>>
>> That is not relevant.
>>
>>
>
> It is. She's a cunt.

You ran from the fact the claims about her were not true.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <671198af$5$3068683$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:22:05 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <67118df7$0$3833$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> > In article <67118ca9$1$2873016$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>> Remember when they asked her if she wiped her hard drive? She said
> >>> "what? with a cloth or something" Remember that. Explain that one.
> >>
> >> That is not relevant.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > It is. She's a cunt.
>
> You ran from the fact the claims about her were not true.

They were. I watched and listened.

When she said "with a cloth or something" I knew she was guilty.

On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:28:28 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<67119d69$0$2761$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

The topic:

Like Hillary said about the dead soldiers in Benghazi "at
this point what difference does it make?

A long, well researched refutation was offered. You have no counter. Seems we
have reached agreement that there is no evidence her quote, taken out of
context, was something to complain about.

Thank you.

For those who missed the refutation:

The quote from Hillary Clinton regarding Benghazi has often been taken out of
context and misrepresented, so let?s clarify what she actually said and
address the broader issue:

1. Context of the Quote

The full quote from Hillary Clinton during a 2013 Senate hearing on Benghazi
was in response to a question about the changing explanations provided by the
administration in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Here?s the full
quote:

?With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because
of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided
they?d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It
is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it
from ever happening again.?

In context, she was not dismissing the deaths of the four Americans but rather
expressing frustration over the political focus on the administration?s early
characterizations of the attack, rather than the more important issue of
understanding what went wrong and ensuring such a tragedy wouldn?t be
repeated.

2. The Purpose of the Hearing

The hearing was focused on the operational failures that led to the deaths of
four Americans in Benghazi, not just the public messaging about the event.
Clinton?s point was that, at that moment, the priority should be on learning
from the event to prevent future attacks, not on litigating the shifting
public explanations after the fact.

3. Investigations and Findings

There were multiple investigations into Benghazi, including bipartisan ones,
and none found evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or neglect on Clinton?s part
that directly led to the deaths. Many of the criticisms that followed were
politically motivated rather than based on factual evidence of malfeasance.

4. Conclusion

The quote is often used to portray Clinton as callous or indifferent to the
deaths, but that interpretation doesn?t align with the full context. Her
response was about moving the focus away from politicizing the event and
toward understanding the security failures to prevent future loss of life.

So, using this quote to suggest she was dismissive of the deaths in Benghazi
is a misrepresentation of her actual position during the hearing.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <6711a12c$0$1895500$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:28:28 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <67119d69$0$2761$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> The topic:
>
> Like Hillary said about the dead soldiers in Benghazi "at
> this point what difference does it make?
>
> A long, well researched refutation was offered. You have no counter. Seems we
> have reached agreement that there is no evidence her quote, taken out of
> context, was something to complain about.
>
> Thank you.
>
> For those who missed the refutation:
>
>
>
> The quote from Hillary Clinton regarding Benghazi has often been taken out of
> context and misrepresented, so let?s clarify what she actually said and
> address the broader issue:
>
> 1. Context of the Quote
>
> The full quote from Hillary Clinton during a 2013 Senate hearing on Benghazi
> was in response to a question about the changing explanations provided by the
> administration in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Here?s the full
> quote:
>
> ?With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because
> of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided
> they?d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It
> is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it
> from ever happening again.?
>
> In context, she was not dismissing the deaths of the four Americans but rather
> expressing frustration over the political focus on the administration?s early
> characterizations of the attack, rather than the more important issue of
> understanding what went wrong and ensuring such a tragedy wouldn?t be
> repeated.
>
> 2. The Purpose of the Hearing
>
> The hearing was focused on the operational failures that led to the deaths of
> four Americans in Benghazi, not just the public messaging about the event.
> Clinton?s point was that, at that moment, the priority should be on learning
> from the event to prevent future attacks, not on litigating the shifting
> public explanations after the fact.
>
> 3. Investigations and Findings
>
> There were multiple investigations into Benghazi, including bipartisan ones,
> and none found evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or neglect on Clinton?s part
> that directly led to the deaths. Many of the criticisms that followed were
> politically motivated rather than based on factual evidence of malfeasance.
>
> 4. Conclusion
>
> The quote is often used to portray Clinton as callous or indifferent to the
> deaths, but that interpretation doesn?t align with the full context. Her
> response was about moving the focus away from politicizing the event and
> toward understanding the security failures to prevent future loss of life.
>
> So, using this quote to suggest she was dismissive of the deaths in Benghazi
> is a misrepresentation of her actual position during the hearing.

At this point what difference does it make?

On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:49:17 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<6711a27e$9$3620702$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <6711a12c$0$1895500$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:28:28 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <67119d69$0$2761$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>> The topic:
>>
>> Like Hillary said about the dead soldiers in Benghazi "at
>> this point what difference does it make?
>>
>> A long, well researched refutation was offered. You have no counter. Seems we
>> have reached agreement that there is no evidence her quote, taken out of
>> context, was something to complain about.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> For those who missed the refutation:
>>
>>
>>
>> The quote from Hillary Clinton regarding Benghazi has often been taken out of
>> context and misrepresented, so let?s clarify what she actually said and
>> address the broader issue:
>>
>> 1. Context of the Quote
>>
>> The full quote from Hillary Clinton during a 2013 Senate hearing on Benghazi
>> was in response to a question about the changing explanations provided by the
>> administration in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Here?s the full
>> quote:
>>
>> ?With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because
>> of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided
>> they?d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It
>> is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it
>> from ever happening again.?
>>
>> In context, she was not dismissing the deaths of the four Americans but rather
>> expressing frustration over the political focus on the administration?s early
>> characterizations of the attack, rather than the more important issue of
>> understanding what went wrong and ensuring such a tragedy wouldn?t be
>> repeated.
>>
>> 2. The Purpose of the Hearing
>>
>> The hearing was focused on the operational failures that led to the deaths of
>> four Americans in Benghazi, not just the public messaging about the event.
>> Clinton?s point was that, at that moment, the priority should be on learning
>> from the event to prevent future attacks, not on litigating the shifting
>> public explanations after the fact.
>>
>> 3. Investigations and Findings
>>
>> There were multiple investigations into Benghazi, including bipartisan ones,
>> and none found evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or neglect on Clinton?s part
>> that directly led to the deaths. Many of the criticisms that followed were
>> politically motivated rather than based on factual evidence of malfeasance.
>>
>> 4. Conclusion
>>
>> The quote is often used to portray Clinton as callous or indifferent to the
>> deaths, but that interpretation doesn?t align with the full context. Her
>> response was about moving the focus away from politicizing the event and
>> toward understanding the security failures to prevent future loss of life.
>>
>> So, using this quote to suggest she was dismissive of the deaths in Benghazi
>> is a misrepresentation of her actual position during the hearing.
>
> At this point what difference does it make?

Being accurate it important.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <6711bab2$4$2385549$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:49:17 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <6711a27e$9$3620702$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> > In article <6711a12c$0$1895500$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:28:28 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >> <67119d69$0$2761$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>
> >> The topic:
> >>
> >> Like Hillary said about the dead soldiers in Benghazi "at
> >> this point what difference does it make?
> >>
> >> A long, well researched refutation was offered. You have no counter. Seems we
> >> have reached agreement that there is no evidence her quote, taken out of
> >> context, was something to complain about.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> For those who missed the refutation:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The quote from Hillary Clinton regarding Benghazi has often been taken out of
> >> context and misrepresented, so let?s clarify what she actually said and
> >> address the broader issue:
> >>
> >> 1. Context of the Quote
> >>
> >> The full quote from Hillary Clinton during a 2013 Senate hearing on Benghazi
> >> was in response to a question about the changing explanations provided by the
> >> administration in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Here?s the full
> >> quote:
> >>
> >> ?With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because
> >> of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided
> >> they?d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It
> >> is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it
> >> from ever happening again.?
> >>
> >> In context, she was not dismissing the deaths of the four Americans but rather
> >> expressing frustration over the political focus on the administration?s early
> >> characterizations of the attack, rather than the more important issue of
> >> understanding what went wrong and ensuring such a tragedy wouldn?t be
> >> repeated.
> >>
> >> 2. The Purpose of the Hearing
> >>
> >> The hearing was focused on the operational failures that led to the deaths of
> >> four Americans in Benghazi, not just the public messaging about the event.
> >> Clinton?s point was that, at that moment, the priority should be on learning
> >> from the event to prevent future attacks, not on litigating the shifting
> >> public explanations after the fact.
> >>
> >> 3. Investigations and Findings
> >>
> >> There were multiple investigations into Benghazi, including bipartisan ones,
> >> and none found evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or neglect on Clinton?s part
> >> that directly led to the deaths. Many of the criticisms that followed were
> >> politically motivated rather than based on factual evidence of malfeasance.
> >>
> >> 4. Conclusion
> >>
> >> The quote is often used to portray Clinton as callous or indifferent to the
> >> deaths, but that interpretation doesn?t align with the full context. Her
> >> response was about moving the focus away from politicizing the event and
> >> toward understanding the security failures to prevent future loss of life.
> >>
> >> So, using this quote to suggest she was dismissive of the deaths in Benghazi
> >> is a misrepresentation of her actual position during the hearing.
> >
> > At this point what difference does it make?
>
> Being accurate it important.

I am. I know what I saw.

On 10/17/24 5:18 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <vers8u$2squh$3@dont-email.me>,
> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>
>> On 10/17/24 4:26 PM, pothead wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Additionally China is build coal plants as fast as they can.
>>> Wonder why that is.
>>> duh.
>>
>> I've already explained the reason why to you guys.
>>
>> Since you're getting even more senile, re-read the archives.
>>
> You never explained shit to me. Pothead isn't a guy. Get your shit
> straight before you judge.

Fun Fact:

Posts to a USENET forum are public, going out to all readers.

....and from a colloquial perspective, "guys" isn't gender specific.

Jesus, you're a stupid fuck. Cry harder, snowflake.

-hh