Net worth is in no way an indicator of intelligence. In fact, it often happens by accident, or in spite of intelligence.
On Jan 22, 2017 2:00 PM, "Jon Langeler" <jon-ispli...@michwave.net> wrote: > Considering his net worth he might he smarter than any of us. But if your > looking for miracles you might be better off reading the bible. > > Jon Langeler > Michwave Technologies, Inc. > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Empty promises just like his brain. But it's okay to grope now.... > Waiting for right time to do it comrades > > On Jan 22, 2017 10:38 AM, "Josh Reynolds" <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > >> https://streamable.com/md28v >> >> I still cannot settle down with the idea that a Trump presidency is not >> some kind of joke taken too far... >> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Waiting on Tweets Trump or Trumps Tweet response to this.. >>> https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fm.huffpo >>> st.com%2Fus%2Fentry%2Fus_5884a06be4b096b4a2325818%2Famp#pt0-568751 >>> >>> On Jan 22, 2017 7:40 AM, "Jaime Solorza" <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey but you can buy Melanias jewelry line on new white house website. >>>> The bullshit is going to get worse...no million and half attended >>>> inauguration.... Women's March had a lot more... His ego is bruised. Let >>>> me Trumpspeak... So sad. >>>> >>>> On Jan 22, 2017 12:47 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> there is this gem now >>>>> http://www.hewillnotdivide.us/ >>>>> 24x7 real time stream of people being idiots ala transformers guy >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Stefan Englhardt <s...@genias.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Today we’ve great possibilities to spread news. But it is very >>>>>> difficult to get the real information unbiased. Breitbart is known to be >>>>>> very biased even here over the ocean. But it seems the „normal“ media in >>>>>> USA is biased, too. >>>>>> >>>>>> E.g. we never understood how Bush jun. got his second election where >>>>>> it was clear he started a war based on wrong information. This is >>>>>> unthinkable here. It would be the one point which would dominate the >>>>>> discussion and would make him unvotable here. Your media seemed to move >>>>>> the >>>>>> discussion away from this fact and relativated his guilty to make him >>>>>> votable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another example is the Hillary Email discussion. This is a topic >>>>>> which is minor at best but was discussed the whole time. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess it is possible Trump kills a person in TV and get reelected >>>>>> if media helps him. Unthinkable? But killing one person is much less a >>>>>> problem than starting a war where thousands are killed. Breitbart would >>>>>> find 100 reasons why this person has to die and would find other topics >>>>>> to >>>>>> report. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Good and neutral media are the base of a working democracy. For sure >>>>>> you have a problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *That One >>>>>> Guy /sarcasm >>>>>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 07:05 >>>>>> *An:* af@afmug.com >>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] [OT: Politics] Can we? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Im pretty confident the next few days is setting the stage to >>>>>> effectively shutting down "media access". Im all for it in the current >>>>>> environment. Between press releases, Publicly accessible data, FOIA >>>>>> responses, live streamed events, and one on one interviews (and >>>>>> yes...twitter) the press really is the dialup internet method of getting >>>>>> information. We know more in real time then the press could ever package >>>>>> up >>>>>> and present. The current mindset of media in press conferences is that of >>>>>> militants (both sides of the media isle) and there is zero >>>>>> professionalism >>>>>> from either one. Neither really gives a damn what the answer is anyway, >>>>>> theyre going to report whatever their preconceived response was either >>>>>> way. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Question: Did we send B52 Bombers to hit an ISIS target? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Answer: Yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> CNN under Obama: Obama authorizes successful airstrike removing 100 >>>>>> ISIS fighters in final days of his presidency. This act ensures that >>>>>> those >>>>>> who would commit terror will be addressed accordingly, even during the >>>>>> transition of power. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Breitbart under Obama: Obama, the snake furthers military conflict >>>>>> day before leaving office, leaving all Americans at risk during a >>>>>> tumultuous time of transition. Kills 100, ensuring a retaliatory >>>>>> response. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Had the same attack been authorized today: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> CNN under Trump: MILITARY FIASCO: Trump bombs random targets. Top >>>>>> military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, refuse to verify >>>>>> there were no civilian casualties, at least 100 confirmed dead. War crime >>>>>> charges possible? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Breitbart under Trump: God Emperor Trump authorized the removal of >>>>>> 100 ISIS top leaders in his first act as Commander in Chief. Rumors of >>>>>> ISIS >>>>>> surrender. Barack Obama potentially one of the dead operatives. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm all for it. I think that everyone is probably just impressed by >>>>>> the first white house press briefing and the remarks at Langley. What an >>>>>> amazing public speaker this one is. Have you ever had a friend or >>>>>> friend's >>>>>> uncle or something who did too much meth? You know how they start out >>>>>> with >>>>>> one sentence and then before you know it they have told fifteen other >>>>>> stories before they ever get to the point...if they ever do??? We have >>>>>> four years of that to look forward to. Just watch the full speech at the >>>>>> CIA, you will see what I mean. Or don't....save yourself the pain. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we talk about politics yet? :P >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>> >>>> >>
