Fúck off Obama, you race-baiting, Islamist apologising, war-mongering ****

[Monty92]

The best thing about you is the colour of your skin, and you even managed to use that to sow division.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/19/barack-obama-trump-attack-speech-virginia-hope

[Sir C]

The best thing about you is the colour of your skin, and you even managed to use that to sow division.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/19/barack-obama-trump-attack-speech-virginia-hope

This is an ironic as rain on your wedding day;

“But here’s one thing I know: if you have to win a campaign by dividing people, you’re not going to be able to govern them. You won’t be able to unite them later if that’s how you start.”

[Burney]

The best thing about you is the colour of your skin, and you even managed to use that to sow division.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/19/barack-obama-trump-attack-speech-virginia-hope

I do find it quite extraordinary that the bien-pensant types all agree that Trump's election speaks of a horribly divided USA in which disunity, mutual resentment, racial division and political polarisation are at a particular high, etc, etc, but no-one ever follows through and suggests that maybe some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the guy who was running the place for the 8 years.

So you agree the place is a mess, but the bloke who was in charge while it became a mess gets a free pass? It's bizarre.

[Monty92]

I do find it quite extraordinary that the bien-pensant types all agree that Trump's election speaks of a horribly divided USA in which disunity, mutual resentment, racial division and political polarisation are at a particular high, etc, etc, but no-one ever follows through and suggests that maybe some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the guy who was running the place for the 8 years.

So you agree the place is a mess, but the bloke who was in charge while it became a mess gets a free pass? It's bizarre.

The one I like is when people claim Trump's election was fuelled by racism, when his election relied on the votes of millions of people who had previously voted a black man into office.

So how does that work exactly? Obama was such a bad President he turned people racist?

[Peter]

This is an ironic as rain on your wedding day;

“But here’s one thing I know: if you have to win a campaign by dividing people, you’re not going to be able to govern them. You won’t be able to unite them later if that’s how you start.”


So, not remotely ironic then?

[Sir C]

So, not remotely ironic then?

:rolleyes: I was being ironic, p.

[Peter]

The one I like is when people claim Trump's election was fuelled by racism, when his election relied on the votes of millions of people who had previously voted a black man into office.

So how does that work exactly? Obama was such a bad President he turned people racist?

What????

Seriously, what the **** are you going on about? Who says something that stupid and why would you repeat it?

[Peter]

:rolleyes: I was being ironic, p.

Is it ironic that americans cant pronounce it properly?

I dont even know anymore.

[Monty92]

What????

Seriously, what the **** are you going on about? Who says something that stupid and why would you repeat it?

Pardon me?

[Burney]

The one I like is when people claim Trump's election was fuelled by racism, when his election relied on the votes of millions of people who had previously voted a black man into office.

So how does that work exactly? Obama was such a bad President he turned people racist?

Well of course Obama's election was fuelled by racism, but in a slightly different way. Basically, as you say, his only USP was being black. This meant that nearly all black people and vast numbers of white people who wanted to show they weren't racist voted for him not because of his perceived ability, but because of his skin colour. Equally, his race meant he was horribly over-hyped to the point where it was assumed he would fart thunder and shít lightning. When he singly failed so to do, it was inevitable that disillusionment set in.

Essentially, the rule is that if you're going to play on your race to get into the White House, don't then be surprised that race is a political issue.

[Peter]

I do find it quite extraordinary that the bien-pensant types all agree that Trump's election speaks of a horribly divided USA in which disunity, mutual resentment, racial division and political polarisation are at a particular high, etc, etc, but no-one ever follows through and suggests that maybe some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the guy who was running the place for the 8 years.

So you agree the place is a mess, but the bloke who was in charge while it became a mess gets a free pass? It's bizarre.

I think his victory speaks of an economic division, particularly geographically, that has grown hugely in the last decade, for obvious reasons. He exploited this by discussing the types of solutions the political mainstream wouldn't touch because it involves tariffs, bashing climate change etc etc...... those issues helped him hugely and were a significant part of the victory.

The populist stuff (Mexicans, the wall etc) is politically divisive but I doubt it involved anybody actually changing their mind. He gave a voice to the 'silent majority' and the rest reacted the way they always do, with unabashed fury.

[Luis Anaconda]

The one I like is when people claim Trump's election was fuelled by racism, when his election relied on the votes of millions of people who had previously voted a black man into office.

So how does that work exactly? Obama was such a bad President he turned people racist?

Your are such a ****ing idiot it's hard to know where to start

[Peter]

Well of course Obama's election was fuelled by racism, but in a slightly different way. Basically, as you say, his only USP was being black. This meant that nearly all black people and vast numbers of white people who wanted to show they weren't racist voted for him not because of his perceived ability, but because of his skin colour. Equally, his race meant he was horribly over-hyped to the point where it was assumed he would fart thunder and shít lightning. When he singly failed so to do, it was inevitable that disillusionment set in.

Essentially, the rule is that if you're going to play on your race to get into the White House, don't then be surprised that race is a political issue.

I think we drastically underestimate the extent to which race is always going to be an issue in US politics. As a social issue it is off the charts in terms of our own issues.

It is a little unfair to say he had nothing but race on his side. National politics is performance and he was more than capable of that, particularly when you look at who he ran against.

Trump v Obama would have been a great campaign.....

[redgunamo]

What????

Seriously, what the **** are you going on about? Who says something that stupid and why would you repeat it?

Hillary Clinton said it, I think.

[Peter]

Pardon me?

Its like trying to explain what a three bedroom semi-detached chicken wing would look like.

[Peter]

Hillary Clinton said it, I think.

Yes, well...... women!

[redgunamo]

I think his victory speaks of an economic division, particularly geographically, that has grown hugely in the last decade, for obvious reasons. He exploited this by discussing the types of solutions the political mainstream wouldn't touch because it involves tariffs, bashing climate change etc etc...... those issues helped him hugely and were a significant part of the victory.

The populist stuff (Mexicans, the wall etc) is politically divisive but I doubt it involved anybody actually changing their mind. He gave a voice to the 'silent majority' and the rest reacted the way they always do, with unabashed fury.

There you are then. It's telling, isn't it, that "solutions the political mainstream wouldn't touch" seem to be obvious common sense to everybody else.

[Burney]

I think we drastically underestimate the extent to which race is always going to be an issue in US politics. As a social issue it is off the charts in terms of our own issues.

It is a little unfair to say he had nothing but race on his side. National politics is performance and he was more than capable of that, particularly when you look at who he ran against.

Trump v Obama would have been a great campaign.....

Oh, I do appreciate that. You can't run a country that for its first 190-odd years enslaves, disenfranchises and legally discriminates against a large proportion of its citizens on the basis of their race without it being an absolutely epic political fault line.

Our racial (N.B. not religious) situation is vastly better and we have the legacy of having run the biggest empire the world's ever seen, ffs!

However, the mistake lies in thinking that a weight of historical wrongs is enough to convince white people whose lives are shítty now to just put up with it because black folks have had it worse. People just don't work like that and calling them 'racist' because they vote for a guy who says he's going to make it better is a remarkably silly response.

I'm not saying he had nothing but race on his side. I said it was his sole USP. Think about it: would a white senator with Obama's experience, charm, speaking ability, etc have got anywhere near the media traction he did? Of course not. He had the race card and he played it rather skilfully. I don't blame him, I just don't think you can do that and then complain about race being an issue.

As a side note, of course, what's pretty funny is that an awful lot of black Americans don't actually see Obama as properly black. Rich, half-white, born in Hawaii (supposedly ;-) ) and with an African father rather than being the descendant of slaves. They would argue that he never really lived the black experience. That's how fücked up questions of race are in the US.

[Peter]

There you are then. It's telling, isn't it, that "solutions the political mainstream wouldn't touch" seem to be obvious common sense to everybody else.

Yes. In the heat of a 'common sense' election campaign they are great ideas. In the real world they are more complicated which is why he hasn't actually done any of them. He made promises he couldn't keep but at least he was too ignorant to know he couldn't keep them. Its an honesty of sorts.

THe others know they

[Peter]

Oh, I do appreciate that. You can't run a country that for its first 190-odd years enslaves, disenfranchises and legally discriminates against a large proportion of its citizens on the basis of their race without it being an absolutely epic political fault line.

Our racial (N.B. not religious) situation is vastly better and we have the legacy of having run the biggest empire the world's ever seen, ffs!

However, the mistake lies in thinking that a weight of historical wrongs is enough to convince white people whose lives are shítty now to just put up with it because black folks have had it worse. People just don't work like that and calling them 'racist' because they vote for a guy who says he's going to make it better is a remarkably silly response.

I'm not saying he had nothing but race on his side. I said it was his sole USP. Think about it: would a white senator with Obama's experience, charm, speaking ability, etc have got anywhere near the media traction he did? Of course not. He had the race card and he played it rather skilfully. I don't blame him, I just don't think you can do that and then complain about race being an issue.

As a side note, of course, what's pretty funny is that an awful lot of black Americans don't actually see Obama as properly black. Rich, half-white, born in Hawaii (supposedly ;-) ) and with an African father rather than being the descendant of slaves. They would argue that he never really lived the black experience. That's how fücked up questions of race are in the US.

I think the point is that race is always an issue. Without question there were millions of americans who were terrified of having a black guy in the White House. For the first black President, race is always going to be the issue that overshadows everything else.

The colour of his skin divides the country. Trump's campaign was incredibly divisive but there is an odd quality here isn't there- isn't all partisan politics divisive? Isn't that the entire point of it?

[redgunamo]

Yes. In the heat of a 'common sense' election campaign they are great ideas. In the real world they are more complicated which is why he hasn't actually done any of them. He made promises he couldn't keep but at least he was too ignorant to know he couldn't keep them. Its an honesty of sorts.

THe others know they

Only political promises though; nobody cares about those. Except people who are interested in politics, I suppose. No, Trump won because he was prepared to demonstrate that America is a country worth standing up for, rather than constantly apologising for.

[redgunamo]

Oh, I do appreciate that. You can't run a country that for its first 190-odd years enslaves, disenfranchises and legally discriminates against a large proportion of its citizens on the basis of their race without it being an absolutely epic political fault line.

Our racial (N.B. not religious) situation is vastly better and we have the legacy of having run the biggest empire the world's ever seen, ffs!

However, the mistake lies in thinking that a weight of historical wrongs is enough to convince white people whose lives are shítty now to just put up with it because black folks have had it worse. People just don't work like that and calling them 'racist' because they vote for a guy who says he's going to make it better is a remarkably silly response.

I'm not saying he had nothing but race on his side. I said it was his sole USP. Think about it: would a white senator with Obama's experience, charm, speaking ability, etc have got anywhere near the media traction he did? Of course not. He had the race card and he played it rather skilfully. I don't blame him, I just don't think you can do that and then complain about race being an issue.

As a side note, of course, what's pretty funny is that an awful lot of black Americans don't actually see Obama as properly black. Rich, half-white, born in Hawaii (supposedly ;-) ) and with an African father rather than being the descendant of slaves. They would argue that he never really lived the black experience. That's how fücked up questions of race are in the US.

In fairness, President Clinton was fairly popular with the media too.

[Burney]

I think the point is that race is always an issue. Without question there were millions of americans who were terrified of having a black guy in the White House. For the first black President, race is always going to be the issue that overshadows everything else.

The colour of his skin divides the country. Trump's campaign was incredibly divisive but there is an odd quality here isn't there- isn't all partisan politics divisive? Isn't that the entire point of it?

Of course there were. The fact seemed to drive Chief over the edge, in fact. On that level, I accept that there is an endemic racism in the states that is unconsciously predicated on the superior status of white people over black people. A black man in the White House basically blows that paradigm apart and with it - it would seem - an awful lot of people's minds.

However, it is also worth remembering that an awful lot of white people voted for Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016. Lumping them in with the racists in order to 'shame' them is reductive and counter-productive.

[Burney]

In fairness, President Clinton was fairly popular with the media too.


Yes, but Clinton - like Blair - got a relatively easy media ride because both ascended after more than a decade of conservative hegemony. The largely left/Democratic-leaning media were always going to lap that up. Although, of course, the backlash to that slavish devotion came in the form of the establishment of Fox News to provide a counterpoint.

[redgunamo]

I think the point is that race is always an issue. Without question there were millions of americans who were terrified of having a black guy in the White House. For the first black President, race is always going to be the issue that overshadows everything else.

The colour of his skin divides the country. Trump's campaign was incredibly divisive but there is an odd quality here isn't there- isn't all partisan politics divisive? Isn't that the entire point of it?

I think we hugely overstate the importance of the issue simply because it suits our view of Americans as a whole. They are our rivals and we don't really like them.

[Ash]

It is a little unfair to say he had nothing but race on his side. National politics is performance and he was more than capable of that, particularly when you look at who he ran against.


I must admit to not paying much attention to the details of his campaigns but the fact that he beat the twin evil warmongers of both John McCain and Hilary Clinton in 2008 is something I will always give him credit for.

Then he got a nobel peace prize and went on to become the first POTUS in history to spend every day of his eight year term at war, bombing more countries than George Bush in the process. :hehe: :-|

Still, could have been worse. It could have been Clinton or McCain.

[redgunamo]

Yes, but Clinton - like Blair - got a relatively easy media ride because both ascended after more than a decade of conservative hegemony. The largely left/Democratic-leaning media were always going to lap that up. Although, of course, the backlash to that slavish devotion came in the form of the establishment of Fox News to provide a counterpoint.

That hegemony is not overwhelming though, is it. Here, it merely amounts to one extra term in the White House. Both major parties usually get two terms each.

[Burney]

That hegemony is not overwhelming though, is it. Here, it merely amounts to one extra term in the White House. Both major parties usually get two terms each.

No, but there is an inevitable effect on the public mood brought about by long periods of one party in office - especially if that party is right-leaning. Media tend to strain under the perceived yoke and then treat whoever comes along afterwards as though they're Jesus and Geoffrey Boycott rolled up into one for quite a long time.

[Peter]

Of course there were. The fact seemed to drive Chief over the edge, in fact. On that level, I accept that there is an endemic racism in the states that is unconsciously predicated on the superior status of white people over black people. A black man in the White House basically blows that paradigm apart and with it - it would seem - an awful lot of people's minds.

However, it is also worth remembering that an awful lot of white people voted for Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016. Lumping them in with the racists in order to 'shame' them is reductive and counter-productive.

Its similar to our own issue with immigration. One can be opposed to immigration without being racist but if one is racist one is bound to oppose immigration. Politics tends to lump people together with the other people voting the same way.

I dont think Trump ran a racist campaign but he ran one that deliberately targeted the premise of political correctness and challenged it. At times, this involved perpetuating racial stereotypes in the more subtle forms and then refusing to apologise for it. Millions of people loved him for that. His sentence on Mexicans was almost genius- he didnt they say they were rapists but he phrased the sentence to make it sound as though he was saying it.

His real genius was in making the White House sound far more important than it actually is, endowing it with the power to change anything it wanted. Powerful President= powerful USA.

[Burney]

Its similar to our own issue with immigration. One can be opposed to immigration without being racist but if one is racist one is bound to oppose immigration. Politics tends to lump people together with the other people voting the same way.

I dont think Trump ran a racist campaign but he ran one that deliberately targeted the premise of political correctness and challenged it. At times, this involved perpetuating racial stereotypes in the more subtle forms and then refusing to apologise for it. Millions of people loved him for that. His sentence on Mexicans was almost genius- he didnt they say they were rapists but he phrased the sentence to make it sound as though he was saying it.

His real genius was in making the White House sound far more important than it actually is, endowing it with the power to change anything it wanted. Powerful President= powerful USA.

Oh, yes. There are vast hordes of votes to be won by challenging political correctness, though, for the simple reason that all right-thinking people absolutely fùcking hate it.

[Monty92]

:nod:

“They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime...their rapists”

His wording was brilliant as it appealed to both his racist supporters and those who were able to convince themselves he meant “their “ and wouldn’t have to feel dirty about voting for him.




Its similar to our own issue with immigration. One can be opposed to immigration without being racist but if one is racist one is bound to oppose immigration. Politics tends to lump people together with the other people voting the same way.

I dont think Trump ran a racist campaign but he ran one that deliberately targeted the premise of political correctness and challenged it. At times, this involved perpetuating racial stereotypes in the more subtle forms and then refusing to apologise for it. Millions of people loved him for that. His sentence on Mexicans was almost genius- he didnt they say they were rapists but he phrased the sentence to make it sound as though he was saying it.

His real genius was in making the White House sound far more important than it actually is, endowing it with the power to change anything it wanted. Powerful President= powerful USA.

[Burney]

:nod:

“They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime...their rapists”

His wording was brilliant as it appealed to both his racist supporters and those who were able to convince themselves he meant “their “ and wouldn’t have to feel dirty about voting for him.

Plus, of course, what he said was to a large extent true. :shrug:

[redgunamo]

Plus, of course, what he said was to a large extent true. :shrug:

P's point, I think, is that despite that, you would never catch anyone in the "political mainstream" saying it :hehe:

It occurred to me the other day that, with people demanding various past political donations be returned, for one reason or another, that, in that case, the Donald himself must be owed a few quid from many who are now defaming him.

[Burney]

P's point, I think, is that despite that, you would never catch anyone in the "political mainstream" saying it :hehe:

It occurred to me the other day that, with people demanding various past political donations be returned, for one reason or another, that, in that case, the Donald himself must be owed a few quid from many who are now defaming him.

Yes, I think it's too easy for us all to forget that the Donald is the real victim here.

[redgunamo]

Yes, I think it's too easy for us all to forget that the Donald is the real victim here.

We can all hang our heads in shame that we didn't come forward and say something much sooner. We all knew enough to do do more than we have done :-(

[Peter]

Oh, yes. There are vast hordes of votes to be won by challenging political correctness, though, for the simple reason that all right-thinking people absolutely fùcking hate it.

Particularly if your general appeal is going to be based on the notion that you will do/say the things the others would not dream of....

[Peter]

Plus, of course, what he said was to a large extent true. :shrug:

The drugs thing..... its the obvious route for drugs. It doesnt mean that those crossing are bringing drugs with them. Plus the drugs are the crime so it is effectively two for the price of one. And anyway, drugs are cool and people want them in the country.

Rape isn't great, admittedly.

[Peter]

P's point, I think, is that despite that, you would never catch anyone in the "political mainstream" saying it :hehe:

It occurred to me the other day that, with people demanding various past political donations be returned, for one reason or another, that, in that case, the Donald himself must be owed a few quid from many who are now defaming him.

You dont make a career in politics by telling the truth.

[redgunamo]

You dont make a career in politics by telling the truth.

Right. Which is probably why the Donald treats politics like a hobby, just something to do.

[redgunamo]

The drugs thing..... its the obvious route for drugs. It doesnt mean that those crossing are bringing drugs with them. Plus the drugs are the crime so it is effectively two for the price of one. And anyway, drugs are cool and people want them in the country.

Rape isn't great, admittedly.

In fact, it means precisely that. Crime is crime, after all, and crime pays.

[Burney]

Rape isn't great, admittedly.

:hehe: You should definitely get a t-shirt printed saying that

[The Insider]

The one I like is when people claim Trump's election was fuelled by racism, when his election relied on the votes of millions of people who had previously voted a black man into office.

So how does that work exactly? Obama was such a bad President he turned people racist?

Have you ever tried telling someone under 30 that Obama was not only a bad president, but one of the worst ever. They simply don't get the concept that he was anything but a knight in shining armour. There is more than a touch of Oh Jeremy Corbyn..... about the whole thing. Which, incidently and ironically (in its proper sense) always reminds me of the Nuremberg rallies.

[Ash]

Have you ever tried telling someone under 30 that Obama was not only a bad president, but one of the worst ever. They simply don't get the concept that he was anything but a knight in shining armour. There is more than a touch of Oh Jeremy Corbyn..... about the whole thing. Which, incidently and ironically (in its proper sense) always reminds me of the Nuremberg rallies.

Yes, because Jeremy Corbyn is exactly like Hitler.

[Ash]

The drugs thing..... its the obvious route for drugs. It doesnt mean that those crossing are bringing drugs with them. Plus the drugs are the crime so it is effectively two for the price of one. And anyway, drugs are cool and people want them in the country.


The CIA are in charge of most of the drugs, I thought, and surely no mere POTUS can do anything about them. Unless they were to do something really drastic like, erm, draining the swamp.

[Peter]

The CIA are in charge of most of the drugs, I thought, and surely no mere POTUS can do anything about them. Unless they were to do something really drastic like, erm, draining the swamp.

Legalise the puff and build a wall to stop the rest.

[Burney]

Yes, because Jeremy Corbyn is exactly like Hitler.

I believe he's referring to the tendency to unthinking, unquestioning and brainless personality cult that has - bizarrely - sprung up around Corbyn. Whether Corbyn is like Hitler is not the point (he's not - due to not being clever or magnetic enough, for starters). The point is that the dynamic is similar.

[Peter]

I believe he's referring to the tendency to unthinking, unquestioning and brainless personality cult that has - bizarrely - sprung up around Corbyn. Whether Corbyn is like Hitler is not the point (he's not - due to not being clever or magnetic enough, for starters). The point is that the dynamic is similar.

Personality cult :clap:

Corbyn :)

[Peter]

Have you ever tried telling someone under 30 that Obama was not only a bad president, but one of the worst ever. They simply don't get the concept that he was anything but a knight in shining armour. There is more than a touch of Oh Jeremy Corbyn..... about the whole thing. Which, incidently and ironically (in its proper sense) always reminds me of the Nuremberg rallies.

One of the worst ever?

[redgunamo]

The CIA are in charge of most of the drugs, I thought, and surely no mere POTUS can do anything about them. Unless they were to do something really drastic like, erm, draining the swamp.

Certainly almost all illegal drug trafficking is done by some law enforcement concern or other nowadays. Everybody has a right to make a living, I suppose, not just criminals.

[Burney]

Personality cult :clap:

Corbyn :)

Well, yes. Despite being almost wholly devoid of personality, his acolytes seem to have projected one onto him and decided to worship it. It's really most odd.

[redgunamo]

One of the worst ever?

Sure. Arguably. After all, his legacy can be summed up in just four words: President Donald John Trump

:-)

[Peter]

Sure. Arguably. After all, his legacy can be summed up in just four words: President Donald John Trump

:-)

Who is the well on the way to becoming one of the best Presidents of all time.

[redgunamo]

Who is the well on the way to becoming one of the best Presidents of all time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbMwB0IgoZY

[Peter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbMwB0IgoZY

There is a legacy for you.

[Ash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbMwB0IgoZY

The one on the right is rather impressive - looks like the one in Jerusalem.

Quite the upgrade on the existing effort.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Borderwallbrownsvile.jpg/170px-Borderwallbrownsvile.jpg

[eastgermanautos]

The best thing about you is the colour of your skin, and you even managed to use that to sow division.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/19/barack-obama-trump-attack-speech-virginia-hope

Hey man, that's my boy. Fvck off limey fagmaster.

[redgunamo]

There is a legacy for you.

:nod: It's what Hillary would've wanted.

[redgunamo]

The one on the right is rather impressive - looks like the one in Jerusalem.

Quite the upgrade on the existing effort.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Borderwallbrownsvile.jpg/170px-Borderwallbrownsvile.jpg

That's the thing; it'll be awfully expensive.

[Peter]

That's the thing; it'll be awfully expensive.

THankfully, I understand that Mexico will be paying for it.

[Ash]

That's the thing; it'll be awfully expensive.

Lucky for the USA that Mexico are paying for it then.

[redgunamo]

THankfully, I understand that Mexico will be paying for it.

Yeah, but with American money :-\

You know the thing, give them a line of credit only redeemable in the US so it looks like Mexico is spending billions of dollars at Macy's and Walmart and with Budweiser and Boeing. Lots of American advisers will also be dispatched down there to supervise while getting paid out of that same credit pot, however the cash will almost all be spent in the US.

It's the customary aid-and-trade-with-the-third-world con.

[redgunamo]

Talking of those chaps, did you ever see this? Came across it years ago while researching something or other.
Possibly the greatest, and most misleading, book review title ever.

One Man's Zeta Jones."Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics"


Lucky for the USA that Mexico are paying for it then.

[Ash]

Talking of those chaps, did you ever see this? Came across it years ago while researching something or other.
Possibly the greatest, and most misleading, book review title ever.

One Man's Zeta Jones."Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics"

Oh yeah, the Riemann Zeta Function :nod:

https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9bceda7d4316cab20bb402f70f91e30058529b44

:-\

[eastgermanautos]

Plus, of course, what he said was to a large extent true. :shrug:

It's not true just because you say it is. If I call you a f*aggit, that is not necessarily true. Oh wait, it's me saying it, so it actually does stand a good chance of being true. But when you say it, that's another matter.

:-D

[�ất Xanh Group]

Truyá»�n thông nhiá»�u vá»� khu căn há»™ đảm bảo tiêu chuẩn 6 thông minh vÃ* 8 khác biệt vá»›i tên gá»�i dá»± án saigon intela (http://canhointelasaigon.com/ly-do-saigon-intela-binh-chanh-duoc-goi-la-can-ho-thong-minh/), má»›i đây, táº*p Ä‘oÃ*n LDG tiếp tục ghi Ä‘iểm cho nhÃ* đầu tÆ° bằng cách mua bảo hiểm giải quyết ná»—i lo rủi ro tÃ*i sản khách hÃ*ng trong 5 năm.

http://canhointelasaigon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Vi-tri.jpg (http://canhointelasaigon.com)

Bảo hiểm cho tÃ*i sản đã trở thÃ*nh dịch vụ không thể thiếu vá»›i những ai biết quan tâm đến những rủi ro có thể gặp phải. Tuy nhiên, đối vá»›i tÃ*i sản lá»›n nhÆ° nhÃ* ở thì ngÆ°á»�i Việt vẫn chÆ°a quan tâm nhiá»�u đến việc mua bảo hiểm cho loại tÃ*i sản nÃ*y để phòng ngừa rủi ro.

http://canhointelasaigon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/tien-ich-saigon-intela.jpg (http://canhointelasaigon.com)

TrÆ°á»›c đó, Saigon Intela đã gây sốt trên thị trÆ°á»�ng khi chÃ*nh thức triển khai mô hình căn há»™ thông minh đảm bảo 6 yếu tố thông minh mang đến nhiá»�u khác biệt vÃ* tiết kiệm chi phÃ* đầu tÆ° hÆ¡n so vá»›i các dá»± án khu căn há»™ bÃ*n giao hoÃ*n thiện truyá»�n thống khác.

Ä�ặc biệt hÆ¡n, khi bÃ*n giao căn há»™, LDG Group còn tặng cho khách hÃ*ng phòng ngủ thông minh kèm hệ tủ ná»™i thất, cá»*a kÃ*nh cÆ°á»�ng lá»±c khung gá»— cao cấp vÃ* nhiá»�u trang bị ná»™i thất khác.
Theo ông Liêm, nếu khách hÃ*ng sở hữu căn há»™ Saigon Intela thì chỉ cần đầu tÆ° thêm khoảng từ 60 – 80 triệu cho ná»™i thất vÃ* váº*t dụng gia đình lÃ* có thể ở ngay, thấp hÆ¡n rất nhiá»�u so vá»›i việc đầu tÆ° mua các căn há»™ bÃ*n giao hoÃ*n thiện cÆ¡ bản truyá»�n thống cùng phân khúc hiện nay.