Well this is all very bizarre. Foxy originally posts a story about an article that, she said, she'd seen in the Times and which she found rather 'scary'. Then, after I'd pointed out the premise of the article was crap, she had second thoughts and decided the article wasn't in the Times but rather in some other place. Additionally she then demanded that I prove that it was in the Times even though she'd said it was where she'd first seen it.

I think this is all about Foxy's penchant for trying to muddy the waters every time she's found to have screwed up. But denying something exists when she was the first to say it exists is a new low or high or something.

"oh what a tangled web we weave...."

Anyway, for what its worth here's the link to the article that Foxy thinks does, doesn't and might exist depending on the contingencies of the moment...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/opinion/pariahs-for-donald-trump.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

__________________________________________________________________

SR,

Merely repeating your error doesn't make it less erroneous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you have the wherewithal to understand your error. Sorry...can't help there.

"Trump isn't running the line ..."
Actually he is but not overtly. I saw one interview where he told the reporter to carefully look at what he'd originally said. But Trump, as usual, is several steps ahead of the pack here and wants this issue to bubble along. Warren may be a rival in 2020 and he wants to be able to play this card then. And she wants the issue resolved and forgotten for the same reason. I suspect you won't follow that.

"You have decided off your own bat ..."
Yes I think for myself. You should try it one day.

Meanwhile, in the real world...
"US weekly jobless claims fall, while continuing claims drop to the lowest level since 1973"

__________________________________________________________________

Can someone offer an English translation of NNN's last post?

SR,

The single flaw in your argument is the assumption that Elizabeth Warren has some native heritage. The test came back with the indication that if there was any native ancestor, that it was 6 to 10 generations back ( 0.1% to 1%) and that the test results were the same as nearly every person of European heritage. Essentially, any markers of native heritage Warren has is lost in the noise.

"At present, genetic ancestry tests are not completely accurate or reliable. In addition, most of these tests are better at providing information about European, African, or Asian ancestry, but are not very good at providing information on Native American ancestry. One reason for this is that Native Americans have not really participated in genetic research involving ancestry estimates, so scientists must make guesses about a person’s Native American ancestry and these guesses are not always very accurate. When comparing genetic information from many different people worldwide, scientific results usually show that Native Americans look more similar to Asians compared to other populations. Further, no genetic tests exist that will determine tribal affiliation and there are no genetic markers to prove Native American ancestry."

mhaze
think I know what nnn meant , he copied the previous post by Belly (Goulburn Jail , Independent) so it makes more sense.

Trump made the condition about DNA test , however dodgy it may be. If he said reading the tea-leaves would be the test for $1m. that should be it , for POTUS , rocket man supreme .

mhaze,

Your behaviour certainly is bizarre.

1) I explained to you that I'd made a mistake regarding
the times. I had no ulterior motive for doing so.

2) I gave you the two links from which I got my information.

3) I did not have any second thoughts.

4) I am not trying to muddy any waters.

5) Your link doesn't work.

Watched yet another doco/film this morning.
The birth of evil,Adolf Hitler
One thing stood out how could a civilized country be coned?
Trump?
America you are standing in it

Dear mhaze,

You opined;

“Actually he is but not overtly. I saw one interview where he told the reporter to carefully look at what he'd originally said. But Trump, as usual, is several steps ahead of the pack here and wants this issue to bubble along. Warren may be a rival in 2020 and he wants to be able to play this card then. And she wants the issue resolved and forgotten for the same reason. I suspect you won't follow that.”

Wow! Mind reading now. Lol. This kind of guff just cracks me up. Look mate you aren't dumb, I will give you that, which makes this behaviour from you all the more bizarre. I get the runners of this world conga lining behind their president but even he has some reservations about the bloke. Not you. Instead you weave this tortuous line explaining why Trump doesn't comply with your characterisation of what occurred with Warren. Your grandiose take on his actions and motives smell to high heaven like a cult of personality explanation that could have come from NK.

As to Trump's economic record it is all a bloody illusion. He has pumped primed the place by throwing money around with gay abandon. In two years he has added more to the deficit, through upping military spending and forcing through self profiting tax cuts, than Obama did in his eight years in office fighting the GFC crisis.

He is a pirate that is all, but an entertaining one at least.