Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 14:41:56 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:21:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:14:37 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 21:25:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

As is his North Korean opponent. >>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/100308651/donald-trump-says-his-nuclear-button-is-much-bigger-and-more-powerful-than-kims
Seriously dangerous kids in a battle about the size of their

25th
amendment for one of them would be good, and something equally >>>>>>>>permanent
for
the other one would do the trick!
Tony

I understand the impeachment issue, but it isn't clear whether you >>>>>>>meant action by the UN Security Cuncil as suggested in this article in >>>>>>>which it is unclear just what the UN Security Council could do: >>>>>>>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-bush-ethics-lawyer-psychologically-unfit-trump-should-not-have-nukes-should-be-impeached/article/2644813

What did you have in mind as being "equally permanent", Tony? >>>>>>Your cite refers to Trump, my "equally permanent" refers to the other >>>>>>idiot

as
I am sure you realised.

Yes I did. While unlikely, impeachment is at least a peaceful method >>>>>of removing Trump - even an increase in the number of Republicans >>>>>either distancing themselves for electoral reasons, or 'walking >>>>>around" him by promoting legislation that mitigates the worst of his >>>>>decrees would be helpful - but I suspect all we will see is more care >>>>>taken over the next nominee for President.

The first comment in the article I cited says: "Two psychologically >>>>>unfit men crowing about their nukes. This is not a good way to start >>>>>the New Year. Congress needs to deal with one of them and the UN >>>>>Security Council needs to deal with the other.", which is where the >>>>>reference to the UN came from.

Frankly I don't care what the solution is so long as it takes him out

the
position of power he is in at the present.

Regarding a method of getting rid of "his North Korean opponent", your >>>>>statement comes across as a modern equivalent to "will no one rid me >>>>>of this turbulent priest"

Only to you, an intelligent person would see it for what it is, a simple >>>>hope
that somehow he will be removed from office. Since I cannot do that >>>>personally
I can only post my hope.

Which is exactly as I saw it - with slightly different words you >>>carefully do not exclude any possible method of getting him removed >>>from office or turned out from the position of power he is in at >>>present.

Only you would assume violence was in my mind, only you have the temerity >>>>to
suggest that about me or anybody else - after all you are the one that

more
than once in the past defamed people here - not me!

Yet again you lie

What lie - state what I wrote that is a lie - do that or shut up!!

- I have not assumed anything was on your mind - in
fact you have made it clear that you were being careful to
techinically not mention violence, even when that possibility was >>>raised as a possible interpretation of your words.

I was careful to not mention the possibility that he could be painted >>luminous
green and exiled to Calcutta and beg for food, I was careful to not suggest >>that he be banished to an island in the Sea of Japan and learn to survive >>somehow - that does not mean that I thought those things were reasonable. I >>did
not at any time suggest that violence was acceptable - that is your

and demonstrates what sort of immoral and unacceptably vicous mind you have

once again.

It is reasonable to
assume that you write in nz.general not to put thoughts into your
mind, but to put thoughts into the minds of the readers of your words. >>>I have no more idea of what was in your mind than I have of what is in >>>the mind of Trump or "his North Korean opponent" - or than you have as >>>to what is in my mond. We can only take statements at face value - and >>>you appear to be deliberately leaving open an interpretation that does >>>include the possibility of violence - carefully done of course so that >>>you can reasonably say that you did not call for violence; the careful >>>framing that avoids stating that you do know a method by which it
could be done, but that you cannot do that personally, is just >>>totalitarian spin worthy of Putin, Mugabe etc.

You can say what you like and once more you are defaming me - you are a >>lowlife
failed poilitical hack with the morals of a cockroach.

<Removed garbage and lies>

<Crap removed>

<The obvious removed>

Inciting harm towards others is a cheap way of getting around having >>>>>no real arguments - an attitude that in New Zealand at least is >>>>>thankfully becoming less acceptable; in nz.general it is a >>>>>characteristic of the worst of our trolls.

Well you would know you are by far the worst here (that I see, there are >>>>some
I
never see even if someone replies to them).
You try very hard to see the worst in almost everybody who posts here - I >>>>despair for your poor benighted family, you must be terrible to live

On the contrary I am doing my best to assist you to clarify your >>>statements - I have no wish to misinterpret you, but if you are >>>ambiguous in your views then you have the opportunity to correct that >>>impression, or confirming that such ambiguity is intended. You could >>>do well to be similarly generous to others by not misinterpreting what >>>I say and lying about it.

I have never lied in this newsgroup and I challenge you to demonstrate >>otherwise. You on the other hand are a repeat liar and defamer.

You claimed (see above) that I had defamed you. That is a lie. You
also abused me, a clear sign that you have no better argument to
offer.

You defame people regularly here, not just me, but many others. You cannot

help to resort to trumpian behaviour.

And you have still not indicated that your statement was not intended
to encourage violence - if it was not a dog-whistle you should be able
to identify just what you were trying to achieve . . .

I do not need to do that, you have failed to demonstrate that I meant what

have incorrectly inferred - the problem is yours and using something that another poster here has correctly said about you on many occasions - you are making shit up.
I can provide a link to someone who can attempt (probably without effect) to teach you how to use the English language, they do that for people for whom English is a second language - they work in your general area.
I rarely use expletives but on this occasion please just sod off until you

help. Unfortunately your immorality is ingrained and beyond redemption!
In summary, you often defame, you are a repetitive liar and your whole

in this newsgroup (and presumably in your worthless pseudo political life) is

disgrace.

In general I agree that seeing Trump and Kim not having Tr

Your lack of technical skills once more in evidence but I suggest that you

not bother to add the missing words since they will not be of any value.

Tony

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 14:41:56 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:21:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:14:37 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jan 2018 21:25:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

As is his North Korean opponent. >>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/100308651/donald-trump-says-his-nuclear-button-is-much-bigger-and-more-powerful-than-kims
Seriously dangerous kids in a battle about the size of their "weapons" >>>>>>>>>25th
amendment for one of them would be good, and something equally >>>>>>>>>permanent
for
the other one would do the trick!
Tony

I understand the impeachment issue, but it isn't clear whether you >>>>>>>>meant action by the UN Security Cuncil as suggested in this article in >>>>>>>>which it is unclear just what the UN Security Council could do: >>>>>>>>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-bush-ethics-lawyer-psychologically-unfit-trump-should-not-have-nukes-should-be-impeached/article/2644813

What did you have in mind as being "equally permanent", Tony? >>>>>>>Your cite refers to Trump, my "equally permanent" refers to the other >>>>>>>idiot

as
I am sure you realised.

Yes I did. While unlikely, impeachment is at least a peaceful method >>>>>>of removing Trump - even an increase in the number of Republicans >>>>>>either distancing themselves for electoral reasons, or 'walking >>>>>>around" him by promoting legislation that mitigates the worst of his >>>>>>decrees would be helpful - but I suspect all we will see is more care >>>>>>taken over the next nominee for President.

The first comment in the article I cited says: "Two psychologically >>>>>>unfit men crowing about their nukes. This is not a good way to start >>>>>>the New Year. Congress needs to deal with one of them and the UN >>>>>>Security Council needs to deal with the other.", which is where the >>>>>>reference to the UN came from.

Frankly I don't care what the solution is so long as it takes him out of >>>>>>>the
position of power he is in at the present.

Regarding a method of getting rid of "his North Korean opponent", your >>>>>>statement comes across as a modern equivalent to "will no one rid me >>>>>>of this turbulent priest"

Only to you, an intelligent person would see it for what it is, a simple >>>>>hope
that somehow he will be removed from office. Since I cannot do that >>>>>personally
I can only post my hope.

Which is exactly as I saw it - with slightly different words you >>>>carefully do not exclude any possible method of getting him removed >>>>from office or turned out from the position of power he is in at >>>>present.

Only you would assume violence was in my mind, only you have the temerity >>>>>to
suggest that about me or anybody else - after all you are the one that has >>>>>more
than once in the past defamed people here - not me!

Yet again you lie

What lie - state what I wrote that is a lie - do that or shut up!!

- I have not assumed anything was on your mind - in
fact you have made it clear that you were being careful to
techinically not mention violence, even when that possibility was >>>>raised as a possible interpretation of your words.

I was careful to not mention the possibility that he could be painted >>>luminous
green and exiled to Calcutta and beg for food, I was careful to not suggest >>>that he be banished to an island in the Sea of Japan and learn to survive >>>somehow - that does not mean that I thought those things were reasonable. I >>>did
not at any time suggest that violence was acceptable - that is your construct
and demonstrates what sort of immoral and unacceptably vicous mind you have -
once again.

It is reasonable to
assume that you write in nz.general not to put thoughts into your
mind, but to put thoughts into the minds of the readers of your words. >>>>I have no more idea of what was in your mind than I have of what is in >>>>the mind of Trump or "his North Korean opponent" - or than you have as >>>>to what is in my mond. We can only take statements at face value - and >>>>you appear to be deliberately leaving open an interpretation that does >>>>include the possibility of violence - carefully done of course so that >>>>you can reasonably say that you did not call for violence; the careful >>>>framing that avoids stating that you do know a method by which it
could be done, but that you cannot do that personally, is just >>>>totalitarian spin worthy of Putin, Mugabe etc.

You can say what you like and once more you are defaming me - you are a >>>lowlife
failed poilitical hack with the morals of a cockroach.

<Removed garbage and lies>

<Crap removed>

<The obvious removed>

Inciting harm towards others is a cheap way of getting around having >>>>>>no real arguments - an attitude that in New Zealand at least is >>>>>>thankfully becoming less acceptable; in nz.general it is a >>>>>>characteristic of the worst of our trolls.

Well you would know you are by far the worst here (that I see, there are >>>>>some
I
never see even if someone replies to them).
You try very hard to see the worst in almost everybody who posts here - I >>>>>despair for your poor benighted family, you must be terrible to live with! >>>

On the contrary I am doing my best to assist you to clarify your >>>>statements - I have no wish to misinterpret you, but if you are >>>>ambiguous in your views then you have the opportunity to correct that >>>>impression, or confirming that such ambiguity is intended. You could >>>>do well to be similarly generous to others by not misinterpreting what >>>>I say and lying about it.

I have never lied in this newsgroup and I challenge you to demonstrate >>>otherwise. You on the other hand are a repeat liar and defamer.

You claimed (see above) that I had defamed you. That is a lie. You
also abused me, a clear sign that you have no better argument to
offer.

You defame people regularly here, not just me, but many others. You cannot but >help to resort to trumpian behaviour.

And you have still not indicated that your statement was not intended
to encourage violence - if it was not a dog-whistle you should be able
to identify just what you were trying to achieve . . .

I do not need to do that, you have failed to demonstrate that I meant what you >have incorrectly inferred - the problem is yours and using something that >another poster here has correctly said about you on many occasions - you are >making shit up.

On Tuesday, 9 January 2018 07:18:14 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

I will not post further on this subject.

That's our dream, Dickhead, but could you widen its scope a little?

I will not post further on this subject.