Ayn Rand Secretly Took Social Health Care Under An Assumed Name - Proving He Devotees To Be Lying Socialists Who Deserve To Be Slaughtered For Their Hypocrisy.
Real Capitalist
An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss
Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss
Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which
Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she
could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs.
Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and
felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that
an individual should take help."
Richo
> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>
>
Who cares?
Really.
Mark.
Olrik
Methamphetamine dealers? Don Kresch?
Just a guess...
:-D
> Really.
>
> Mark.
>
Ray Keller
==============================================
"Real Capitalist" wrote in message
news:Xns9EB1C68...@194.177.98.144...
sarge
Ok, now I am convinced there is a God. Or is it no GOD. Oh, I am
tring to see the relevence.
Michael Gray
Don Kresch?
--
"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact"
TH Huxley
Eddie Haskell
"Real Capitalist" <nos...@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9EB1C68...@194.177.98.144...
> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece of
shit.
See folks? This is what fascist, socialist democrat cocksuckers do. They
can't refute what someone like Ayn Rand said and espoused, so they resort to
character assassination. That's why they are to be despised and hated for
the trash that they are. Or moreover, tried and convicted for crimes against
humanity like any other socialist fascist democrat despot.
You are worthless. You contribute nothing. Your life is a detriment to
sociality.
DIE.
-Eddie Haskell
raven1
wrote:
>
>"Real Capitalist" <nos...@nobody.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9EB1C68...@194.177.98.144...
>
>> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>
>Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece of
>shit.
>
>See folks? This is what fascist, socialist democrat cocksuckers do. They
>can't refute what someone like Ayn Rand said and espoused,
Why would anyone bother to refute her nonsense?
> so they resort to
>character assassination.
Rand was addicted to amphetamines from around the time of "The
Fountainhead" on. That's irrelevant to anything she had to say, of
course, but it's not "character assasination" to say true things about
a person.
>That's why they are to be despised and hated for
>the trash that they are. Or moreover, tried and convicted for crimes against
>humanity like any other socialist fascist democrat despot.
>
>You are worthless. You contribute nothing. Your life is a detriment to
>sociality.
>
>DIE.
Your social maturity is unfortunately typical of Randroids.
Eddie Haskell
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:tgomo6h5ngmh10svi...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:39:18 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Real Capitalist" <nos...@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9EB1C68...@194.177.98.144...
>>
>>> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>>
>>Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece of
>>shit.
>>
>>See folks? This is what fascist, socialist democrat cocksuckers do. They
>>can't refute what someone like Ayn Rand said and espoused,
>
> Why would anyone bother to refute her nonsense?
Your fuckin' stupidity and reliance on smears has been established.
Congratulations.
Now, go fuck yourself.
-Eddie Haskell
raven1
wrote:
>
>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>news:tgomo6h5ngmh10svi...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:39:18 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Real Capitalist" <nos...@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9EB1C68...@194.177.98.144...
>>>
>>>> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>>>
>>>Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece of
>>>shit.
>>>
>>>See folks? This is what fascist, socialist democrat cocksuckers do. They
>>>can't refute what someone like Ayn Rand said and espoused,
>>
>> Why would anyone bother to refute her nonsense?
>
>Your fuckin' stupidity and reliance on smears has been established.
My reliance on smears? I rejected such an approach by pointing out
that her being an amphetamine addict was irrelevant to the fact that
she spouted nonsense.
>Congratulations.
>
>Now, go fuck yourself.
And again, displaying the social maturity so unfortunately typical of
Randroids.
Kermit
> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>
> An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss
> Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss
> Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which
> Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
This is an argument, perhaps, that she was a hypocrite. But how does
this establish that her followers are liars? I thought this only
recently came to light. In any event, her hypocrisy doesn't establish
the truth or falsity of her writings.
>
> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she
> could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs.
> Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and
> felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that
> an individual should take help."
And really - you think hypocrisy should be a capital offense? Perhaps
you are more a threat than Randroids are.
Kermit
Eddie Haskell
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:07:04 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>news:tgomo6h5ngmh10svi...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:39:18 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Real Capitalist" <nos...@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns9EB1C68...@194.177.98.144...
>>>>
>>>>> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>>>>
>>>>Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece of
>>>>shit.
>>>>
>>>>See folks? This is what fascist, socialist democrat cocksuckers do. They
>>>>can't refute what someone like Ayn Rand said and espoused,
>>>
>>> Why would anyone bother to refute her nonsense?
>>
>>Your fuckin' stupidity and reliance on smears has been established.
>
> My reliance on smears? I rejected such an approach by pointing out
> that her being an amphetamine addict was irrelevant to the fact that
> she spouted nonsense.
Another smear and confirmation of your stupidity, and this time ABJECT
stupidity.
What a proud day for you.
>>Congratulations.
>>
>>Now, go fuck yourself.
>
> And again, displaying the social maturity so unfortunately typical of
> Randroids.
I'm sending a note home to your mom about your inability to follow
directions.
Or do I need to make a phone call?
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:hf2no6pn2msffqad2...@4ax.com...
>>shit.
>
Cite?
Yogurt gets caught lying in UseNet again:
http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/547956EF-02BA-4FF4-B529-95073EC23F38/CRB001940.jpg
-Eddie Haskell
Jeff M
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:30:34 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"<ik...@ssaas.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> <Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
>> news:hf2no6pn2msffqad2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:39:18 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"<ik...@ssaas.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece of
>>>> shit.
>>>
>>> Isn't that what you did to the Clintons?
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> Yogurt gets caught lying in UseNet again:
>
> nonsense. (remember, Wright said she "had no case)?
>
> CPAC spent $2 Million
>
> Burton, D'Amato, Thompsen around $170 Million
>
> Result?
>
> We now know clinton got a blow job
Well, there was the lying thing . . .
Eddie Haskell
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:7p5no6l1e64me6e3s...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:30:34 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
>>news:hf2no6pn2msffqad2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:39:18 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece of
>>>>shit.
>>>
>>> Isn't that what you did to the Clintons?
>>
>>Cite?
>>
>>Yogurt gets caught lying in UseNet again:
>
> nonsense. (remember, Wright said she "had no case)?
>
> CPAC spent $2 Million
>
> Burton, D'Amato, Thompsen around $170 Million
>
> Result?
>
> We now know clinton got a blow job
And that he lied under oath.
Yogurt responds:
http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/26/2678/3YAUD00Z.jpg
-Eddie Haskell
Shall not be infringed
An interview with Tom Hanks indicates that, although he never served,
he has used the miseries of several soldiers to make much of his
wealth. Those soldiers died poor.
Jeff M
>
> a) "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>
> b) "I was out of the loop"
>
> c) "Iraq has tons of WMD"
Irrelevant. One liar's lies don't excuse another liar's lies. I was
taught that somewhere around age five, I suppose. Were you taught
anything different?
> As for "lying"---if you, by chance, are referring to the question
> asked in the Jan 20th Jones deposition, (given a NEW non-legal
> definition) if he ever had "sexual relations" with Jones----then I'll
> inform you that the answer "no" was not a lie.
>
> If a new, untested, non-legal definition is used as a question, the
> person has a RIGHT to challenge the validity of that definition, even
> when the Judge (wright) counseled Jones Atty's NOT to use that
> definition (for that reason)
>
> Clinton answere "No"
>
> That was not a lie under legal precedence.
>
> Clinton WON the Jones case---had he "lied" during that deposition,
> Wright would/Could NOT have awarded the judgment to Clinton.
>
> Clinton settled the case after Jones appealed----effectively making
> the denial untrue (because by settling the definition was THEN
> accepted as legal"
>
> Had Clinton not settled, NO action against clinton could have been
> taken
Being a lawyer, I found myself singularly unimpressed with such
arguments at the time, because a lie is a lie. Clinton's lie was
entirely self-serving, unnecessary and made to the American people. I
liked and still like Clinton, and I thought he was a pretty good
President, but he has displayed serious character flaws from time to
time, and this was certainly one of them. That he was a sort of victim
of a witch hunt by a bunch of unscrupulous ideological hypocrites
conducting a grossly over-broad, over-prolonged and unprecedented
investigation into all sorts of minutiae in his life is no defense.
Jeff M
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:12:36 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>> Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece of
>>>>>>>> shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't that what you did to the Clintons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yogurt gets caught lying in UseNet again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Scaife spent $7 Million to smear clinton---including Paula Jones
>>>>> nonsense. (remember, Wright said she "had no case)?
>>>>>
>>>>> CPAC spent $2 Million
>>>>>
>>>>> Burton, D'Amato, Thompsen around $170 Million
>>>>>
>>>>> Result?
>>>>>
>>>>> We now know clinton got a blow job
>>>>
>>>> Well, there was the lying thing . . .
>>>
>>> Post any "lying" here that exceeded:
>>>
>>> a) "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>>>
>>> b) "I was out of the loop"
>>>
>>> c) "Iraq has tons of WMD"
>>
>> Irrelevant. One liar's lies don't excuse another liar's lies. I was
>> taught that somewhere around age five, I suppose. Were you taught
>> anything different?
>
> lie--one that is not only a false claim, but even if true can't be
> reasonably compared to a REAL lie about things that got people killed?
> What kind of ethics were you taught?
I was taught it was unethical to lie, and I have sufficient sense and
life experience to often recognize one when I encounter it.
>>> As for "lying"---if you, by chance, are referring to the question
>>> asked in the Jan 20th Jones deposition, (given a NEW non-legal
>>> definition) if he ever had "sexual relations" with Jones----then I'll
>>> inform you that the answer "no" was not a lie.
>>>
>>> If a new, untested, non-legal definition is used as a question, the
>>> person has a RIGHT to challenge the validity of that definition, even
>>> when the Judge (wright) counseled Jones Atty's NOT to use that
>>> definition (for that reason)
>>>
>>> Clinton answere "No"
>>>
>>> That was not a lie under legal precedence.
>>>
>>> Clinton WON the Jones case---had he "lied" during that deposition,
>>> Wright would/Could NOT have awarded the judgment to Clinton.
>>>
>>> Clinton settled the case after Jones appealed----effectively making
>>> the denial untrue (because by settling the definition was THEN
>>> accepted as legal"
>>>
>>> Had Clinton not settled, NO action against clinton could have been
>>> taken
>>
>> Being a lawyer, I found myself singularly unimpressed with such
>> arguments at the time, because a lie is a lie.
>
> Being a lawyer, then you should know the difference between the
> legality of denying a charge that had no basis, denying a definition
> that had no legal foundation, and a denial that provided an effective
> way to counter a smear.
I am not solely referencing Clinton's testimony under oath. Being a
lawyer, I also recognized that the truth of the matter was not
necessarily defined by what could be proved in court.
>> Clinton's lie was
>> entirely self-serving, unnecessary
>
> What "lie"?
>
> If you're referring to the denial of "having sexual relations" as
> defined by Jones attorney, then what kind of a lawyer are you that
> would not only don't know the law (as mentioned by Wright during that
> deposition) but at the same time countenance the use of a false claim
> by a citizen, backed by a political enemy, in a civil case that had no
> merit, and asked totally without relevance to the case at hand?
What gave you the idea that I "countenance the use of a false claim by a
citizen, backed by a political enemy, in a civil case that had no merit,
and asked totally without relevance to the case at hand"?
>> ..and made to the American people.
>
> Related to the Jones Civil suit---he did not. His answer was legally
> true.
>
> Further, IF you're an attorney, you'd know that had Clinton RE-WON
> that civil action instead of settling, no such claim that "he lied"
> would be credible.
>
> As an attorney, the 3 main issues related to the denial of the
> Camerata definition asked on Jan 20th, were clearly unsupportable by
> Jones/CPAC
>
>> That he was a sort of victim
>> of a witch hunt by a bunch of unscrupulous ideological hypocrites
>> conducting a grossly over-broad, over-prolonged and unprecedented
>> investigation into all sorts of minutiae in his life is no defense.
>
> There again, IF you're an attorney, the use of the term "..some sort
> of victim"---is a negative inference that he was not a victim and
> should be recognized by you as blatant nonsense.
Clinton was not entirely innocent of fault. His own misconduct opened
the door to the situation he found himself in.
> For instance if I say: "if you're some "sort of attorney" that's a
> perjorative inferring you are not, or not one any discernable ability
> to recognize the fallacy of the claims made against Clinton
>
> IF you are some sort of attorney, you should be outraged that those
> who represent themselves as representing the "moral" part of the
> political universe would subvert the system to attempt to disable a
> popular, capable, president that they could not beat with ideas and
> issues
And you think I'm not? Nonetheless, their wrongs neither justify nor
excuse Clinton's.
> IF you're some sort of an attorney, it seems your moral compass has
> been clouded or deadened by the fact that Clinton (an attorney
> himself) just beat the living shit out of those who were smearing
> him---which seems to form the basis of why you considering his denial
> as gravitous as, say, reagans lies about Iran-Contra---_REAL lies, BTW
This is not a case of comparative fault, and my moral compass is working
just fine, thank you.
Eddie Haskell
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:jodno6tpu8cc9jtko...@4ax.com...
>
> a) "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>
> b) "I was out of the loop"
>
> c) "Iraq has tons of WMD"
None of those were lies, you immoral third-world ape.
> As for "lying"---if you, by chance, are referring to the question
> asked in the Jan 20th Jones deposition, (given a NEW non-legal
> definition) if he ever had "sexual relations" with Jones----then I'll
> inform you that the answer "no" was not a lie.
You're lying.
> If a new, untested, non-legal definition is used as a question, the
> person has a RIGHT to challenge the validity of that definition, even
> when the Judge (wright) counseled Jones Atty's NOT to use that
> definition (for that reason)
>
> Clinton answere "No"
>
> That was not a lie under legal precedence.
You're lying through your blue-gum teeth.
> Clinton WON the Jones case---had he "lied" during that deposition,
> Wright would/Could NOT have awarded the judgment to Clinton.
He got away with it, corrupt porch monkey.
But thanks for demonstrating why every black nation on earth is a corrupt
third-world shit hole.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:g7adnSzGe9V7UhbQ...@giganews.com...
Precisely. If the lying son-of-a-bitch had just come clean from the
beginning he would have spared the nation the whole ordeal, but no. And
anyone excusing what he did is no more than a lackey pining for his massa.
Like Monkey boy here..
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:7g4oo65e7r1sja4rl...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:12:36 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>> Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating
>>>>>>>> piece of
>>>>>>>> shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't that what you did to the Clintons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yogurt gets caught lying in UseNet again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Scaife spent $7 Million to smear clinton---including Paula Jones
>>>>> nonsense. (remember, Wright said she "had no case)?
>>>>>
>>>>> CPAC spent $2 Million
>>>>>
>>>>> Burton, D'Amato, Thompsen around $170 Million
>>>>>
>>>>> Result?
>>>>>
>>>>> We now know clinton got a blow job
>>>>
>>>> Well, there was the lying thing . . .
>>>
>>> Post any "lying" here that exceeded:
>>>
>>> a) "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>>>
>>> b) "I was out of the loop"
>>>
>>> c) "Iraq has tons of WMD"
>>
>>Irrelevant. One liar's lies don't excuse another liar's lies. I was
>>taught that somewhere around age five, I suppose. Were you taught
>>anything different?
>
> lie--one that is not only a false claim, but even if true can't be
> reasonably compared to a REAL lie about things that got people killed?
> What kind of ethics were you taught?
>
>>> asked in the Jan 20th Jones deposition, (given a NEW non-legal
>>> definition) if he ever had "sexual relations" with Jones----then I'll
>>> inform you that the answer "no" was not a lie.
>>>
>>> If a new, untested, non-legal definition is used as a question, the
>>> person has a RIGHT to challenge the validity of that definition, even
>>> when the Judge (wright) counseled Jones Atty's NOT to use that
>>> definition (for that reason)
>>>
>>> Clinton answere "No"
>>>
>>> That was not a lie under legal precedence.
>>>
>>> Clinton WON the Jones case---had he "lied" during that deposition,
>>> Wright would/Could NOT have awarded the judgment to Clinton.
>>>
>>> Clinton settled the case after Jones appealed----effectively making
>>> the denial untrue (because by settling the definition was THEN
>>> accepted as legal"
>>>
>>> Had Clinton not settled, NO action against clinton could have been
>>> taken
>>
>>Being a lawyer, I found myself singularly unimpressed with such
>>arguments at the time, because a lie is a lie.
>
> legality of denying a charge that had no basis, denying a definition
> that had no legal foundation, and a denial that provided an effective
> way to counter a smear.
>
>>entirely self-serving, unnecessary
>
The problem here is that you were, and are, jealous of Monica.
Now, piss off.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:54eno61rlrv16l98r...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:17:11 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
>>news:7p5no6l1e64me6e3s...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:30:34 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:hf2no6pn2msffqad2...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:39:18 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that what you did to the Clintons?
>>>>
>>>>Cite?
>>>>
>>>>Yogurt gets caught lying in UseNet again:
>>>
>>> Scaife spent $7 Million to smear clinton---including Paula Jones
>>> nonsense. (remember, Wright said she "had no case)?
>>>
>>> CPAC spent $2 Million
>>>
>>> Burton, D'Amato, Thompsen around $170 Million
>>>
>>> Result?
>>>
>>> We now know clinton got a blow job
>>
>>And that he lied under oath.
>
You're immoral lying piece of shit.
> It's been explained to dipshits like you over and over.
You've lied like a Clinton over and over.
> You cannot name a lie he told in the smears that the Right was doing
He said that he did not have sex with Monica. That's a fucking lie, you
fuckin' ape.
> You also cannot name any lie that even approached Reagan's lie about
> Selling arms to Iran, or Bush's about Iraq.
He didn't lie, you immoral cocksucking liar.
Take your third-world stupidity and corruption to another country and
corrupt it, porch ape.
-Eddie Haskell
Voltaire
wrote:
A History Of Lies: WMD, Who Said What and When
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4882.htm
Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and
conceal lethal weapons
George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons
of mass destruction
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I
suggest they wait a bit
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say
that such a claim is palpably absurd
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to
the conflict
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons
of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used
for the production of biological weapons.
George "aWol" Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is
once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ...
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering
chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ...
thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and
materials from the U.N. inspectors."
George "aWol" Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass
destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the
dictator tells us he does not have.
George "aWol" Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons
of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our
judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised.
George "aWol" Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical
particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the
operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons
of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those
weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have
produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass
destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a
number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of
mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from
officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of
mass destruction will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi
scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he
destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George "aWol" Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there
and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass
destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam
Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George "aWol" Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and
find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean,
there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago --
whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're
still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them
to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're
interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass
destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the
one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
It was a surprise to me then ?Eit remains a surprise to me now ?Ethat
we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward
dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been
to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border
and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing
devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
--George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003
You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front
of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to
build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the
United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And
we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as
time goes on
--George W. Bush
Press Briefing
5/30/2003
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing
devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
--George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003
You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front
of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to
build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the
United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And
we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as
time goes on
--George W. Bush
Press Briefing
5/30/2003
President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and 'Nothing' to Do With 9/11
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/22/president_bush_admits_iraq_had_no
On Monday, President Bush admitted that the Iraq war is "straining the
psyche of our country." But he vowed to stay the course. A reporter
questioned him about why he opposed withdrawing US troops from Iraq.
In his answer, Bush admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass
destruction and had "nothing" to do with 9/11. [includes rush
transcript
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, Present Bush admitted the Iraq war is
"straining the psyche of our country," but he vowed to stay the
course. A reporter questioned him about why he opposed withdrawing
U.S. troops from Iraq.
REPORTER: A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem
like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn’t gone in. How
do you square all of that?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I square it, because—imagine a world in
which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of
mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who
would—who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be
like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle
East.
Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main
reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to
make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human
suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom
agenda. And so my question—my answer to your question is, is
that—imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up
even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment
and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just
fine until we arrived, and then, you know, kind of that we’re going to
stir up the hornet’s nest theory. It just—just doesn’t hold water, as
far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of
our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Nothing, except for it’s part of—and nobody
has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered
the attack. Iraq was a—Iraq—the lesson of September the 11th is, take
threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested
that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: President Bush at his news conference yesterday.
Eddie Haskell
"Voltaire" <Volt...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
news:m9jpo65cg25p518gc...@4ax.com...
> which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of
> mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who
> like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle
> East.
>
> reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
> mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to
> make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human
> suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom
> that-imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up
> even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment
> and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
>
> You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just
> fine until we arrived, and then, you know, kind of that we're going to
> far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of
> our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
>
> REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?
>
> PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
>
> REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center?
>
> has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered
> threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested
> that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: President Bush at his news conference yesterday.
Is there a point you'd like to make?
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-Bill Clinton - 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members
though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001."
-Hillary Clinton - 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
The Guardian - February 6, 1999
"Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing
closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition
officials."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct.
9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e
means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Eddie Haskell
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:lnhpo6hb25e8fadv0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:27:50 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Post any "lying" here that exceeded:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>>>>>
>>>>> b) "I was out of the loop"
>>>>>
>>>>> c) "Iraq has tons of WMD"
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. One liar's lies don't excuse another liar's lies. I was
>>>> taught that somewhere around age five, I suppose. Were you taught
>>>> anything different?
>>>
>>> You actually don't think there's a difference between an ALLEGED
>>> lie--one that is not only a false claim, but even if true can't be
>>> reasonably compared to a REAL lie about things that got people killed?
>>> What kind of ethics were you taught?
>>
>>I was taught it was unethical to lie, and I have sufficient sense and
>>life experience to often recognize one when I encounter it.
>
> a "lie"
You teach us what a lie is every day, chimp fucker.
-Eddie Haskell
Jeff M
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:27:50 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.org>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Post any "lying" here that exceeded:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>>>>>
>>>>> b) "I was out of the loop"
>>>>>
>>>>> c) "Iraq has tons of WMD"
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. One liar's lies don't excuse another liar's lies. I was
>>>> taught that somewhere around age five, I suppose. Were you taught
>>>> anything different?
>>>
>>> You actually don't think there's a difference between an ALLEGED
>>> lie--one that is not only a false claim, but even if true can't be
>>> reasonably compared to a REAL lie about things that got people killed?
>>> What kind of ethics were you taught?
>>
>> I was taught it was unethical to lie, and I have sufficient sense and
>> life experience to often recognize one when I encounter it.
>
> a "lie"
>
> on the part of a prosecutor to charge a client using a wrong code in
> an indictment, that the Error is cause to ask for dismissal? Or, as
> in this case (you whine about) after directly warning Jones atty's
> that using a NON-STANDARD legal definition could not be used without
> allowing a "No" answer---as it was a "legal RIGHT" to do so and defend
> it by "finding of fact" in a court of law?
>
> IF (and he did not) Clinton "lied" (under oath) on Jan 20th, and IF
> what I suggested was not legally true---why would Judge Wright not
> have held Clinton in contempt IMMEDIATELY, and instituted legal
> proceedings against him immediately, and :
>
> 2) Awarded Clinton the Judgment after ruling that Jones HAD NO CASE?
>
>>>> Clinton's lie was
>>>> entirely self-serving, unnecessary
>>>
>>> What "lie"?
>>>
>>> If you're referring to the denial of "having sexual relations" as
>>> defined by Jones attorney, then what kind of a lawyer are you that
>>> would not only don't know the law (as mentioned by Wright during that
>>> deposition) but at the same time countenance the use of a false claim
>>> by a citizen, backed by a political enemy, in a civil case that had no
>>> merit, and asked totally without relevance to the case at hand?
>>
>> What gave you the idea that I "countenance the use of a false claim by a
>> citizen, backed by a political enemy, in a civil case that had no merit,
>> and asked totally without relevance to the case at hand"?
>
> backed solely by the political party who set it up, funded by that
> political party, and you're "morally outraged" at a defendants DEFENSE
> of that smear----rather than at the perpetrators of that immoral
> behavior.
>
>>>> ..and made to the American people.
>>>
>>> Related to the Jones Civil suit---he did not. His answer was legally
>>> true.
>>>
>>> Further, IF you're an attorney, you'd know that had Clinton RE-WON
>>> that civil action instead of settling, no such claim that "he lied"
>>> would be credible.
>>>
>>> As an attorney, the 3 main issues related to the denial of the
>>> Camerata definition asked on Jan 20th, were clearly unsupportable by
>>> Jones/CPAC
>>>
>>>> That he was a sort of victim
>>>> of a witch hunt by a bunch of unscrupulous ideological hypocrites
>>>> conducting a grossly over-broad, over-prolonged and unprecedented
>>>> investigation into all sorts of minutiae in his life is no defense.
>>>
>>> There again, IF you're an attorney, the use of the term "..some sort
>>> of victim"---is a negative inference that he was not a victim and
>>> should be recognized by you as blatant nonsense.
>>
>>
>> Clinton was not entirely innocent of fault. His own misconduct opened
>> the door to the situation he found himself in.
>
>
> Both were of legal age, whatever happened had concluded at least 2
> years prior to the deliberate smear put in place after the "Smear by
> Committee" was failing, the so-called "misconduct" was actually
> thought up by an Arkansas attorney Named Cliff Harris who Clinton (as
> AG) would not give preferential treatment and assembled a litany of
> lies and stories that Mary Matalin actually turned down because they
> had no factual merit.
>
> Second, what fucking misguided sense of ethics of yours suggests YOU
> get to determine the gravity of "misconduct" in and terms, if the
> conduct of the accusers is morally and legally more egregious than
> your belief a legitimate defense isn't a right?
>
>>> For instance if I say: "if you're some "sort of attorney" that's a
>>> perjorative inferring you are not, or not one any discernable ability
>>> to recognize the fallacy of the claims made against Clinton
>>>
>>> IF you are some sort of attorney, you should be outraged that those
>>> who represent themselves as representing the "moral" part of the
>>> political universe would subvert the system to attempt to disable a
>>> popular, capable, president that they could not beat with ideas and
>>> issues
>>
>> And you think I'm not? Nonetheless, their wrongs neither justify nor
>> excuse Clinton's.
>
>
>>> IF you're some sort of an attorney, it seems your moral compass has
>>> been clouded or deadened by the fact that Clinton (an attorney
>>> himself) just beat the living shit out of those who were smearing
>>> him---which seems to form the basis of why you considering his denial
>>> as gravitous as, say, reagans lies about Iran-Contra---_REAL lies, BTW
>>
>> This is not a case of comparative fault, and my moral compass is working
>> just fine, thank you.
>
> of beliefs you have.
>
> It is ulitimate hypocrisy and totally immoral (not to mention
> unchristian) behavior to sort out "uncomparative" anecdotal issues to
> "prove" a political enemy is guilty (of what is still inconclusive)
Um, sure, okay, whatever. Now why don't you go have a cup of tea and a
cool wet cloth for your forehead? Meanwhile, I'll mark you down as
having missed the point entirely. When you've calmed yourself somewhat,
you might want to go back and re-read what I actually wrote, and perhaps
you'll see that the Jones case, nor any other, has anything to do with
it. Clinton lied to the American people, including me, about committing
adultery with Ms. Lewinsky, a White House intern and therefore his
subordinate, in their workplace. That's all there is to it.
Legal technicalities and hair-splitting are beside the point. I know
that if I receive oral sex from another woman, I've cheated on my wife
and committed adultery. If that other woman is my subordinate,
consensual or not, I've taken advantage of my power and of her, and
breached an ethical duty of good conduct that I owe to both my employer
and my subordinate. If I say "I did not have sexual relations with that
woman," I know I'm lying, even if, in some resulting legal proceeding,
it does not precisely meet some stipulated technical definition of
"sex". That's my judgment. It may not be yours, or some court's, but
it is mine, and it's well founded in fact.
Was all that went along with it absurdest political theater, at best,
and a bald political vendetta dressed up in quasi-legal regalia for the
butchery, at worst? Of course it was. Was Clinton's getting a BJ
anywhere near the worst thing a President ever did in the Oval Office?
Of course not. Was it primarily a matter between him, Ms. Lewinsky, his
wife and his own conscience? Yes, and that's where it would have better
remained.
But Clinton chose to do what he did with a subordinate and in their
workplace. Big mistake, because that that made it (plausibly) the
business of his employers', meaning all of us. Then he lied about it,
compounding his mistake, saying "I did not have sexual relations with
that woman," on camera, while addressing the American people, his
employers (and not the court). In court, I could finagle with the best
of 'em, but in ordinary life, only ordinary commonsense rules apply.
I don't know if you're married, but my wife ain't gonna put up with any
claim that a oral sex somehow isn't really sex at all, ever, and I ain't
buying it, either. I just really dislike being lied to, even with the
amazing chutzpah he displayed in doing so, frown on adultery as more of
a breach of trust than a moral issue, and disdain people who take sexual
advantage of even willing subordinates in the workplace.
I also have nothing but contempt for the way his misconduct was
exploited politically, and for the hypocrites behind it, but that
doesn't undo, for me, the fact that Clinton lied. I still think he was
a better than average President and a good man. He even sent me an
autographed book. But he's still a liar. The moral relativism of that
lie in comparison to the admittedly far more egregious and harmful lies
told by other presidents and politicians is immaterial to me. I deal
with them separately, and I often have, right here in this forum.
Voltaire
>Is there a point you'd like to make?
The point is the Bush cabal lied and mislead the country. The mistakes
made by others were to believe these war criminals.
America has never been exposed to such a level of murderous fear
mongering. Bush was advised by his own not to lie about aluminum tube
and yellow cake in his SOTU address but he went forward.
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/29_SOTU.html
Here's what Bush said:
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Your defense of the war criminals shows just how ignorant you actually
are. But we all knew that didn't we?
Eddie Haskell
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
You'll have to understand that Tyrone's argument here is that Clinton didn't
have sex with Monica because oral sex isn't sex.
In other words, he's lying like a Clinton.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Voltaire" <Volt...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
>
>>Is there a point you'd like to make?
>
> The point is the Bush cabal lied and mislead the country.
And what a cabal. A bipartisan world-wide conspiracy that has yet to be
outed by a single member.
Bush is a fuckin' genius.
> The mistakes
> made by others were to believe these war criminals.
I see, Bush lied to Clinton and the democrats while he was governor of
Texas. That's why Clinton bomb Iraq in 98.
> America has never been exposed to such a level of murderous fear
> mongering. Bush was advised by his own not to lie about aluminum tube
> and yellow cake in his SOTU address but he went forward.
>
> http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/29_SOTU.html
>
>
> Here's what Bush said:
>
> "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
> high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
And?
Here's what Clinton said:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-Bill Clinton - 1998
That means that Clinton lied, right?
> Your defense of the war criminals shows just how ignorant you actually
> are. But we all knew that didn't we?
Since Clinton bombed Iraq over nonexistent WMDs that he lied about he's a
war criminal too, right?
-Eddie Haskell
Voltaire
wrote:
>
America believed the Bush lies until he admitted to them.
>
Daddy Bush lies to start Desert Storm
Gulf War 1 Lies - Babies Thrown From Incubators - Wars For Zion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ib6wL55EoM
Bush Gets Caught In His Own Lie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU&feature=related
BUSH CONFESSION 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzwiEhUoQUU&feature=related
Bush and you can't do anything but lie.
Eddie Haskell
"Voltaire" <Volt...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
Cite?
> Gulf War 1 Lies - Babies Thrown From Incubators - Wars For Zion
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ib6wL55EoM
>
>
> Bush Gets Caught In His Own Lie
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU&feature=related
Two different things. "stay the course" meant that we wouldn't pull out
while in the other instance he was referring to the surge.
Your desperate attempt to pin that as a lie is your own lie.
> BUSH CONFESSION 911
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzwiEhUoQUU&feature=related
What, that he shouldn't have used the word "crusade?" Why don't you post
something significant like where he farted or something?
> Bush and you can't do anything but lie.
You're lying.
Now, when are you going to explain why Clinton and the democrats lied about
WMDs?
-Eddie Haskell
Voltaire
wrote:
By pretending you are ignorant is not an excuse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8CCJTJCQk
If you lack any more lies put forward then you don't have to look any
further.
>
>> Gulf War 1 Lies - Babies Thrown From Incubators - Wars For Zion
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ib6wL55EoM
>>
>>
>> Bush Gets Caught In His Own Lie
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU&feature=related
>
>Two different things. "stay the course" meant that we wouldn't pull out
>while in the other instance he was referring to the surge.
>
>Your desperate attempt to pin that as a lie is your own lie.
>
>> BUSH CONFESSION 911
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzwiEhUoQUU&feature=related
>
>What, that he shouldn't have used the word "crusade?" Why don't you post
>something significant like where he farted or something?
>
>> Bush and you can't do anything but lie.
>
>You're lying.
>
>Now, when are you going to explain why Clinton and the democrats lied about
>WMDs?
>
To SAY there may be WMD and Sad am is a threat is quite different
then knowing there are not and sending US troops off to die. Bush had
plenty of time to prove their existence and by sending in team after
team of inspectors that came back with the same truth that there were
NO WMD Bush murdered more Americans than all terrorists combined
including 911. Bush used that even to further his lies which makes him
the worst American war criminal of all time.
The fact that you still to this day deny all this makes you the
biggest liar since Bush's terrorist attacks on another county.
"You can fool some of the people all the time. These are the ones we
have to concentrate on" GW Bush.
He is including you in this pea brain assertion You poor ignorant
fool.
Eddie Haskell
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:kn1qo697sk5vbcol0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:04:59 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Voltaire" <Volt...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
>>news:q6rpo61usdu6b15o5...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>Is there a point you'd like to make?
>>>
>>> The point is the Bush cabal lied and mislead the country.
>>
>>And what a cabal. A bipartisan world-wide conspiracy that has yet to be
>>outed by a single member.
>
Democrats and republicans, coon.
> The others were token participants, and did little or nothing except
> lend their name to his stupidity
You're a dumbass, eggplant.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-Bill Clinton - 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Eddie Haskell
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:kn1qo697sk5vbcol0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:04:59 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Voltaire" <Volt...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
>>news:q6rpo61usdu6b15o5...@4ax.com...
>>Bush is a fuckin' genius.
>
> Figures a pond-scum moron like you would thinks so.
It's your assertion that he pulled off a bipartisan world-wide conspiracy of
epic proportion, you stupid, bushman.
>>> The mistakes
>>> made by others were to believe these war criminals.
>>
>>I see, Bush lied to Clinton and the democrats while he was governor of
>>Texas. That's why Clinton bomb Iraq in 98.
>
> No, like all the BAD intel from Iraq, he acted on what the CIA and DOD
> told him.
From the same CIA director, George Tenet, that told Bush that the existence
WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk," you tribal ape.
> But that was in 1998, stupid
>
> We're talking about AFTER January 2003 and what Bush knew was false.
You're lying like a nigger usual, aren't you, monkey fucker?
>>> America has never been exposed to such a level of murderous fear
>>> mongering. Bush was advised by his own not to lie about aluminum tube
>>> and yellow cake in his SOTU address but he went forward.
>>>
>>> http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/29_SOTU.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's what Bush said:
>>>
>>> "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
>>> high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
>>
>>And?
>
> It wasn't true
When Clinton and the democrats said Saddam had WMDs in 98 that wasn't true
either, so it was lie, right, you stupid lying monkey boy?
> The CIA and DOD told Bush those Aluminum tubes were NOT used in
> weapons or any weapon systems.
>
>>Here's what Clinton said:\
>
> IN....
>
>>-Bill Clinton - 1998
>>
>>That means that Clinton lied, right?
>
> Nope
>
> Clinton didn't say that in 2003, stupid
He said it in 98 when it wasn't true and he believed he had them until the
fall of Saddam, you lying little colored boy.
That means he lied.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clinnton.htm
>>> Your defense of the war criminals shows just how ignorant you actually
>>> are. But we all knew that didn't we?
>>
>>Since Clinton bombed Iraq over nonexistent WMDs that he lied about he's a
>>war criminal too, right?
>
> Since Clinton acted on 1998 Intel (nonexistent) it's not relevant to
> what bush Knew, or the evidence (didn't) Show after January 2003
Clinton said that Saddam had WMDs in 98 when he didn't so he lied, boy.
> Any of this sinking in?
Yeah, you're a lying little low IQ Negro shit devoid of any morals. But
that's common with you people and why all black nations are third-world shit
holes. Now, get the fuck out of my country. You are a detriment and don't
belong here.
-Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
raven1
wrote:
>
>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>news:mdrmo6tr22phaphie...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:07:04 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>>news:tgomo6h5ngmh10svi...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:39:18 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Real Capitalist" <nos...@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:Xns9EB1C68...@194.177.98.144...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fuck off, you worthless, stupid, lying, character assassinating piece of
>>>>>shit.
>>>>>
>>>>>See folks? This is what fascist, socialist democrat cocksuckers do. They
>>>>>can't refute what someone like Ayn Rand said and espoused,
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone bother to refute her nonsense?
>>>
>>>Your fuckin' stupidity and reliance on smears has been established.
>>
>> My reliance on smears? I rejected such an approach by pointing out
>> that her being an amphetamine addict was irrelevant to the fact that
>> she spouted nonsense.
>
>Another smear
Wow. Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you, son? That Rand was
addicted to amphetamines is a fact, not a smear. Of course, as I
pointed out, that's irrelevant to anything she had to say, making your
charge even sillier.
That aside, Rand was one of the purest and deepest fountains of
philosophical bullshit that the 20th (or any other) century ever saw.
Like her ideological nemesis Karl Marx, her positions suffered from
the fatal flaw that they were completely detached from any familiarity
with how humans actually behave in the real world, making it
unsurprising that her primary appeal appears to be to adolescent males
with a chip on their shoulder, or adults who never grew out of that
phase. Your own behavior in this thread seems determined to prove that
last point correct, so feel free to keep responding.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Roach-B-Gone!
Buh-bye.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack
Obama, 12/20/07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Kresch
blood:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:07:29 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
><CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>"The President does not have power under the Constitution to
>>unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
>>involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack
>>Obama, 12/20/07
>
>Key word: "Unilaterally"
>
>The UN authorized the policy
And it has to be then authorized by each respective country's
constitutional method. THAT is in the UN charter. Did you not know
that?
>
>The President DOES have the power to use military to engage as part of
>the UN (and NATO)
Not without Congress' say-so.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.
Boris Kapusta
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:39:18 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <ik...@ssaas.com>
>wrote:
>
>Roach-B-Gone!
>
>Buh-bye.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:07:29 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>"The President does not have power under the Constitution to
>>unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
>>involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack
>>Obama, 12/20/07
>
> Key word: "Unilaterally"
>
> The UN authorized the policy
>
> The President DOES have the power to use military to engage as part of
> the UN (and NATO)
Only if he adheres to the U.S. Constitution. No one, not NATO, the UN or
treaties trump the Constitution.
Don Kresch
blood:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:14:00 -0500, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:30:26 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>blood:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:07:29 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>>><CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"The President does not have power under the Constitution to
>>>>unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
>>>>involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack
>>>>Obama, 12/20/07
>>>
>>>Key word: "Unilaterally"
>>>
>>>The UN authorized the policy
>>
>> And it has to be then authorized by each respective country's
>>constitutional method. THAT is in the UN charter. Did you not know
>>that?
>
>Don't know what you mean by "constitutional method"
As described in the constitutin
>---but the CIC has
>the power under the war powers act
That act is unconstitutional; Congress cannot cede its power
to the president. If you believe it can, please show where in the
Constitution it says so.
>Since military action does not require a "declaration of war"
It does in this case. So what I'm talking about is entirely
reelvant.
>>>The President DOES have the power to use military to engage as part of
>>>the UN (and NATO)
>>
>> Not without Congress' say-so.
>
>Absolutely, without congressional "Sayso"
False.
>
>The president must INFORM congress (within 48 hrs) of a military
>operation underway
Unconstitutional.
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
Read this and get post back
http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/war-powers-resolution
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:02:32 -0500, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:36:32 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>blood:
>>>The president must INFORM congress (within 48 hrs) of a military
>>>operation underway
>>
>> Unconstitutional.
>>
>
>Read this and get post back
>
>http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/war-powers-resolution
Please point to me where in the constitution it says that
Congress can cede its power to the President.
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:20:22 -0400, Voltaire <Volt...@Spamex.com>
>scrawled in blood:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:02:32 -0500, Don Kresch
>><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:36:32 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>>blood:
>
>>>>The president must INFORM congress (within 48 hrs) of a military
>>>>operation underway
>>>
>>> Unconstitutional.
>>>
>>
>>Read this and get post back
>>
>>http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/war-powers-resolution
>
> Please point to me where in the constitution it says that
>Congress can cede its power to the President.
>
>
>Don
>aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.
What none of you righties seem to understand is the term
"unilateral". The US backed up the actions of France who was the first
to bomb. This has been discussed countless times with the same ending.
The idea that posting the same lies and expecting them to somehow be
truthful is the definition of insanity.
Obama followed all the rules of engagement. If he HAD acted
"unilaterally" then you would have something to whine about.
You have nothing. PERIOD.
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:23:07 -0500, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:20:22 -0400, Voltaire <Volt...@Spamex.com>
>>scrawled in blood:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:02:32 -0500, Don Kresch
>>><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:36:32 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>>>blood:
>>
>>>>>The president must INFORM congress (within 48 hrs) of a military
>>>>>operation underway
>>>>
>>>> Unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Read this and get post back
>>>
>>>http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/war-powers-resolution
>>
>> Please point to me where in the constitution it says that
>>Congress can cede its power to the President.
> What none of you righties seem to understand is the term
>"unilateral".
You don't understand three things:
1. I'm not a "righty".
2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
Once you grasp those three salient points, get back to me.
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:17:50 -0400, Voltaire <Volt...@Spamex.com>
>scrawled in blood:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:23:07 -0500, Don Kresch
>><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:20:22 -0400, Voltaire <Volt...@Spamex.com>
>>>scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:02:32 -0500, Don Kresch
>>>><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:36:32 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>>>>blood:
>>>
>>>>>>The president must INFORM congress (within 48 hrs) of a military
>>>>>>operation underway
>>>>>
>>>>> Unconstitutional.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Read this and get post back
>>>>
>>>>http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/war-powers-resolution
>>>
>>> Please point to me where in the constitution it says that
>>>Congress can cede its power to the President.
>
>> What none of you righties seem to understand is the term
>>"unilateral".
>
> You don't understand three things:
>
> 1. I'm not a "righty".
Not many are admitting they are righties. I understand your situation.
> 2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
Did I say it did?
> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
The president was not required to consult Congress before his
decision.
>
> Once you grasp those three salient points, get back to me.
>
You seem to be the one that needs to get a better grasp on reality.
SkyEyes
> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>
> Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss
> Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which
> Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
>
> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she
> could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs.
> Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and
> felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that
> an individual should take help."
<Yawn>
Anybody got a way to flavor popcorn that doesn't use salt?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
I don't think you do.
>
>
>> 2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>
>Did I say it did?
Yes, you did.
>
>
>> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
>
>
>The president was not required to consult Congress before his
>decision.
Yes, he is. The Constitution says so.
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
Maybe you can explain.
>
>>
>>
>>> 2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>>
>>Did I say it did?
>
> Yes, you did.
I simply posted a link.
>>
>>
>>> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
>>
>>
>>The president was not required to consult Congress before his
>>decision.
>
> Yes, he is. The Constitution says so.
>
>
Cite you claims.
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
I'm an anarchist.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>>>
>>>Did I say it did?
>>
>> Yes, you did.
> I simply posted a link.
You did more than that.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
>>>
>>>
>>>The president was not required to consult Congress before his
>>>decision.
>>
>> Yes, he is. The Constitution says so.
>>
>>
> Cite you claims.
Only Congress may declare war.
Show where in the Constitution Congress can cede its power to
the President.
Jeanne Douglas
<b2783ef4-8234-4779...@y31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:31 pm, Real Capitalist <nos...@nobody.com> wrote:
> > On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
> >
> > An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss
> > Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss
> > Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments
> > which
> > Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
> >
> > As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she
> > could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government
> > programs.
> > Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and
> > felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel
> > that
> > an individual should take help."
>
> <Yawn>
>
> Anybody got a way to flavor popcorn that doesn't use salt?
Garlic powder!
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
I am not surprised.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>>>>
>>>>Did I say it did?
>>>
>>> Yes, you did.
>> I simply posted a link.
>
> You did more than that.
It seems you simply can not read.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The president was not required to consult Congress before his
>>>>decision.
>>>
>>> Yes, he is. The Constitution says so.
>>>
>>>
>> Cite you claims.
>
> Only Congress may declare war.
>
Your inablilty to cite your claim shows your ignorance.
> Show where in the Constitution Congress can cede its power to
>the President.
>
If there no unilateral action by the US.
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
Then you rescind your above comment.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>>>>>
>>>>>Did I say it did?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you did.
>>> I simply posted a link.
>>
>> You did more than that.
>
> It seems you simply can not read.
It seems you simply love to lie.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The president was not required to consult Congress before his
>>>>>decision.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, he is. The Constitution says so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Cite you claims.
>>
>> Only Congress may declare war.
>>
> Your inablilty to cite your claim shows your ignorance.
Your love of lying shows your cowardice.
>
>
>
>
>> Show where in the Constitution Congress can cede its power to
>>the President.
>>
> If there no unilateral action by the US.
The Constitution says no such thing. Show where in the
Constitution Congress can cede its power to the President.
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
If you claim to be an anarchist I will recend my comment and take you
at your word. Anarchist or republican you both have the same goals.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Did I say it did?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you did.
>>>> I simply posted a link.
>>>
>>> You did more than that.
>>
>> It seems you simply can not read.
>
> It seems you simply love to lie.
>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The president was not required to consult Congress before his
>>>>>>decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, he is. The Constitution says so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Cite you claims.
>>>
>>> Only Congress may declare war.
>>>
>> Your inablilty to cite your claim shows your ignorance.
>
> Your love of lying shows your cowardice.
>
I will take your ignorance and inability to back up your claims as
proof of your cowardice.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:20:22 -0400, Voltaire <Volt...@Spamex.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:02:32 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:36:32 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>>blood:
>
>>>>The president must INFORM congress (within 48 hrs) of a military
>>>>operation underway
>>>
>>> Unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>
>>Read this and get post back
>>
>>http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/war-powers-resolution
>
> Please point to me where in the constitution it says that
> Congress can cede its power to the President.
Note that the WPR also limits engagement to a direct attack on the United
States or the imminent threat.
Neither exists therefore this military intervention is illegal. But
we've been here before, the U.S. Presidency is now above the law.
Time to roll out Madame Guillotine...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack
Obama, 12/20/07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:30:26 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:07:29 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"The President does not have power under the Constitution to
>>>>unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
>>>>involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
>>>>--Barack Obama, 12/20/07
>>>
>>> Key word: "Unilaterally"
>>>
>>> The UN authorized the policy
>>>
>>> The President DOES have the power to use military to engage as part of
>>> the UN (and NATO)
>>
>>Only if he adheres to the U.S. Constitution. No one, not NATO, the UN
>>or treaties trump the Constitution.
>
> How is that relevant?
It dispels your argument. Playing dumb won't disguise the futility of
defending Obama's illegal use of the military any more than Republicans
defended Bush's.
You're both gangs determined to violate the Constitution for your own
crusades blaming the other gang for exactly the same shit you do.
<snip excuses>
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
No. The republicrats and demopublicans are one and the same. I
oppose them both.
>
>>>>>>>> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The president was not required to consult Congress before his
>>>>>>>decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, he is. The Constitution says so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Cite you claims.
>>>>
>>>> Only Congress may declare war.
>>>>
>>> Your inablilty to cite your claim shows your ignorance.
>>
>> Your love of lying shows your cowardice.
>>
> I will take your ignorance and inability to back up your claims as
>proof of your cowardice.
I will take your further instance of lying as your concession
that you're wrong.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Show where in the Constitution Congress can cede its power to
>>>>the President.
>>>>
>>> If there no unilateral action by the US.
>>
>> The Constitution says no such thing. Show where in the
>>Constitution Congress can cede its power to the President.
>>
>>
>If there no unilateral action by the US.
The Constitution says no such thing. Show where in the
Constitution Congress can cede its power to the President.
Don Kresch
blood:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:32:04 -0500, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>
>>> What none of you righties seem to understand is the term
>>>"unilateral".
>>
>> You don't understand three things:
>>
>> 1. I'm not a "righty".
>
> The Quacking seems to fit the situation
Nope.
>
>> 2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>
> u·ni·lat·er·al (y›”n…-l²t“…r-…l) adj. 1. Of, on, relating to,
>involving, or affecting only one side. 2. Performed or undertaken by
>only one side. 3. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations,
>or persons, as a contract or an agreement. 4. Emphasizing or
>recognizing only one side of a subject. 5. Having only one side.
Yes, and that doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>
>
>> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
>
>Congress has power to declare war
>
>We are not at war
Lobbing cruise missiles is an act of war.
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
No matter how much you cower from your inability to cite your claim
about what the Constitution says it will remain proof of your
ignorance.
You can not deny that the president did not act unilaterally.
Calling me a liar when you have no answers shows exactly how ignorant
you are.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Show where in the Constitution Congress can cede its power to
>>>>>the President.
>>>>>
>>>> If there no unilateral action by the US.
>>>
>>> The Constitution says no such thing. Show where in the
>>>Constitution Congress can cede its power to the President.
>>>
>>>
>>If there no unilateral action by the US.
>
> The Constitution says no such thing. Show where in the
>Constitution Congress can cede its power to the President.
>
Why would the constitution say that there was no unilateral action
taken by the president?
Don Kresch
blood:
>You keep mumbling about congressional power
No, I keep STATING it.
Lobbing cruise missiles is an act of war.
Don Kresch
blood:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:59:10 -0500, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>
>>> Maybe you can explain.
>>
>> I'm an anarchist.
>
>Yea, and that makes you dingier than mad whackoffs
No, it makes me sane.
Don Kresch
blood:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:03:23 -0500, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>
>>>The president was not required to consult Congress before his
>>>decision.
>>
>> Yes, he is. The Constitution says so.
>
>
>An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is
>declared to exist between the United States and some other nation.
>This power is vested in Congress by the Constitution, Art. I. There is
>no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act.
And the act is necessary. And ONLY Congress may do it. Nor may
Congress cede its power to the President.
>
>
>Defining all military action as "war" is a idiotic winger contrivance
>that serves as a straw for you sinking wingers
Winger?
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about?
Don Kresch
blood:
>On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 01:00:04 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
><CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>> Please point to me where in the constitution it says that
>>> Congress can cede its power to the President.
>>
>>Note that the WPR also limits engagement to a direct attack on the United
>>States or the imminent threat.
>
>No legislation can unilaterally take away the Presidents right to use
>military force as he sees fit.
There is no such right, bloodthirsty warmonger.
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:06:42 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>blood:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:32:04 -0500, Don Kresch
>><spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> What none of you righties seem to understand is the term
>>>>"unilateral".
>>>
>>> You don't understand three things:
>>>
>>> 1. I'm not a "righty".
>>
>> The Quacking seems to fit the situation
>
> Nope.
>
>>
>>> 2. Unilateral doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>>
>> u·ni·lat·er·al (y›”n…-l²t“…r-…l) adj. 1. Of, on, relating to,
>>involving, or affecting only one side. 2. Performed or undertaken by
>>only one side. 3. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations,
>>or persons, as a contract or an agreement. 4. Emphasizing or
>>recognizing only one side of a subject. 5. Having only one side.
>
> Yes, and that doesn't just mean "one country goes it alone".
>
>>
>>
>>> 3. Congress cannot cede its power to the President.
>>
>>Congress has power to declare war
>>
>>We are not at war
>
> Lobbing cruise missiles is an act of war.
Unilateralism is any doctrine or agenda that supports one-sided
action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism
There was no unilateral action taken by the US.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act of war:
an aggressive act, usually employing military force, which constitutes
an immediate threat to peace
The multilateral action taken was to restore peace by stopping an
act of aggression that was promised to kill thousands.
WASHINGTON - President Reagan last night defendedhis belief that he
does not have to obey the War Powers Act, saying, "Well, other
presidents have thought so, too."
He also said at his press conference that the United States has been
involved in more than 200 military actions since 1798 and that about
140 of them were taken "by American presidents that, on their own, put
American forces in action because they believed it was necessary to
our national security and our welfare."
He said he has been consulting with the Congress on steps taken in the
Persian Gulf but said complying with the War Powers Act "would just
interfere so much with our rights and our strategy and so …
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
Yes.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism
>
> There was no unilateral action taken by the US.
There was by the US President.
Fuck, you're really fucking stupid.
Voltaire
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:23:07 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:20:22 -0400, Voltaire <Volt...@Spamex.com>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:02:32 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:36:32 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>>>blood:
>>
>>>>>The president must INFORM congress (within 48 hrs) of a military
>>>>>operation underway
>>>>
>>>> Unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Read this and get post back
>>>
>>>http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/war-powers-resolution
>>
>> Please point to me where in the constitution it says that
>> Congress can cede its power to the President.
>
>Note that the WPR also limits engagement to a direct attack on the United
>States or the imminent threat.
>
>Neither exists therefore this military intervention is illegal. But
>we've been here before, the U.S. Presidency is now above the law.
>
Moe, Larry cheese..Moe, Larry cheese.
There was no unilateral action taken by the US.
WASHINGTON - President Reagan last night defendedhis belief that he
does not have to obey the War Powers Act, saying, "Well, other
presidents have thought so, too."
He also said at his press conference that the United States has been
involved in more than 200 military actions since 1798 and that about
140 of them were taken "by American presidents that, on their own, put
American forces in action because they believed it was necessary to
our national security and our welfare."
He said he has been consulting with the Congress on steps taken in the
Persian Gulf but said complying with the War Powers Act "would just
interfere so much with our rights and our strategy and so …
WAR POWERS ACT. The Constitution of the United States names the
president commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, but it also
explicitly assigns to Congress the authority to declare war. Not
distinguishing clearly between the authority to initiate war and the
authority to wage it, this distribution of war-making authority has
fostered ambiguity and political controversy. In practice, chief
executives have routinely employed the U.S. military without
congressional mandate, especially during the Cold War. The purposes
for which presidents have deployed U.S. forces range from a show of
force to minor hostilities to large-scale warfare. Although such
actions have not been uniformly popular, the...............
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3401804473.html
read it and weep. Especially the part where it states:
Not distinguishing clearly between the authority to initiate war and
the authority to wage it, this distribution of war-making authority
has fostered ambiguity and political controversy. In practice, chief
executives have routinely employed the U.S. military without
congressional mandate,
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
>On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 01:00:04 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
><CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:23:07 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:20:22 -0400, Voltaire <Volt...@Spamex.com>
>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:02:32 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:36:32 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>>>>blood:
>>>
>>>>>>The president must INFORM congress (within 48 hrs) of a military
>>>>>>operation underway
>>>>>
>>>>> Unconstitutional.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Read this and get post back
>>>>
>>>>http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/war-powers-resolution
>>>
>>> Please point to me where in the constitution it says that
>>> Congress can cede its power to the President.
>>
>>Note that the WPR also limits engagement to a direct attack on the United
>>States or the imminent threat.
>>
>>Neither exists therefore this military intervention is illegal. But
>>we've been here before, the U.S. Presidency is now above the law.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Moe, Larry cheese..Moe, Larry cheese.
>
> There was no unilateral action taken by the US.
There was by the US President. Without getting a declaration
of war from Congress, the President acted unilaterally. Recall:
unilaterally does NOT solely mean "no other nations involved". Only
lying assclowns want it to solely mean "no other nations involved".
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
Let me try to review what it should by now be obvious that you know.
Unilateral means one-sided action that you agreed to by stating "yes"
Please give account of any unilateral action taken by the US
considering the French were the first to launch an attack.
It appears that YOU are the one that is stupid.
Winston_Smith
wrote:
>On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>
> An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss
>Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss
>Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which
>Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
>
> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she
>could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs.
>Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and
>felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that
>an individual should take help."
If I'm forced to buy something at gun point, why is it evil to take
delivery of it?
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
One more time for the slow learner.
Unilateralism is any doctrine or agenda that supports one-sided
action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism
adj
of, having, affecting, or occurring on only one side
law (of contracts, obligations, etc) made by, affecting, or binding
one party only and not involving the other party in reciprocal
obligations
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unilateralism?qsrc=2446
ADJECTIVE:
Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: "a
unilateral advantage in defense" (New Republic).
Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a
contract or an agreement.
Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
Having only one side.
Tracing the lineage of one parent only: a unilateral genealogy.
Botany Having leaves, flowers, or other parts on one side only.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/unilateral
Now who is stupid?
Jeff M
False analogy. You don't "buy" Social Security or Medicare. Likewise,
you don't pay your taxes "at gun point," any more than you comply with,
say, the laws prohibiting murder "at gun point."
Even though Rand's stated ideals were wrongheaded, simplistic and naive,
she still made herself a hypocrite by disdaining to follow them in her
own life.
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
Let me try to review what it should by now be obvious to you:
you're a fucking idiot who thinks that "unilaterally" solely means
"only one country acted".
It, however, does not solely mean that.
Fucking moron.
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
One more time for the slow learner:
Unilaterally does NOT solely mean "only one country acted".
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
>On 3/26/2011 9:45 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2011 00:31:20 +0100, Real Capitalist<nos...@nobody.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>>>
>>> An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss
>>> Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss
>>> Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which
>>> Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
>>>
>>> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she
>>> could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs.
>>> Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and
>>> felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that
>>> an individual should take help."
>>
>> If I'm forced to buy something at gun point, why is it evil to take
>> delivery of it?
>
>False analogy.
No, it's a proper analogy.
>You don't "buy" Social Security or Medicare. Likewise,
>you don't pay your taxes "at gun point,"
Yes, you do.
Jeff M
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:57:04 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.org>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 3/26/2011 9:45 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On 24 Mar 2011 00:31:20 +0100, Real Capitalist<nos...@nobody.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>>>>
>>>> An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss
>>>> Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss
>>>> Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which
>>>> Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
>>>>
>>>> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she
>>>> could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs.
>>>> Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and
>>>> felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that
>>>> an individual should take help."
>>>
>>> If I'm forced to buy something at gun point, why is it evil to take
>>> delivery of it?
>>
>> False analogy.
>
> No, it's a proper analogy.
No, it's not. It's typical of the fallacious "reasoning" of some on the
right, who don't understand the basics of citizenship and the
responsibilities that go with it.
>> You don't "buy" Social Security or Medicare. Likewise,
>> you don't pay your taxes "at gun point,"
>
> Yes, you do.
No, you don't. Well, maybe the scofflaws and tax deadbeats of the right
sometimes need to be forced, but not responsible, law-abiding adults.
Even so, it's usually only takes a piece of paper pointed at them, not
an gun, but they're easily confused.
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
So you choose to remain stupid. I think you have made that clear by
now.
There was no unilateral action taken by the president. Denial does
not make it true.
You are the one that wants to make the definition what you say it
is. I have proven you to be wrong over and over. Show me where in the
constitution it says what you want it to say. You simply can not. You
have nothing. You can not back up anything you say.
Thanks for playing.
"The constitution is only a piece of paper." GW Bush.
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
> There was no unilateral action taken by the president.
Yes, there was. Please stop lying.
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
>On 3/26/2011 10:02 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:57:04 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.org>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> On 3/26/2011 9:45 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> On 24 Mar 2011 00:31:20 +0100, Real Capitalist<nos...@nobody.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>>>>>
>>>>> An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss
>>>>> Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss
>>>>> Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which
>>>>> Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
>>>>>
>>>>> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she
>>>>> could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs.
>>>>> Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and
>>>>> felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that
>>>>> an individual should take help."
>>>>
>>>> If I'm forced to buy something at gun point, why is it evil to take
>>>> delivery of it?
>>>
>>> False analogy.
>>
>> No, it's a proper analogy.
>
>No, it's not.
Yes, it is. There is no such thing as a "responsibility of
citizenship", and it is only the baseless assertions of the mindless
sheep who parrot it from their masters (who've also asserted it
without evidence) which keeps it going.
All governments are illegitimate.
>>> You don't "buy" Social Security or Medicare. Likewise,
>>> you don't pay your taxes "at gun point,"
>>
>> Yes, you do.
>
>No, you don't.
Yes, you do. Try not paying your taxes and see if the
jackbooted thugs don't come in with guns to take your stuff.
Voltaire
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
There was not. Please stop being stupid and cite you projection. I
have cited mine but you chose to cut them.
War Powers Act of 1973
. “Act now, inform later” has been the dominant presidential practice.
Notable examples include Jimmy Carter's abortive attempt to rescue
embassy hostages from Iran (1980); Ronald Reagan's interventions in
Lebanon (1982), Grenada (1983), and the Persian Gulf (1987–1988);
George H. W. Bush's ouster of President Noriega of Panama (1989); and
William J. Clinton's interventions in the civil wars of Bosnia,
Kosovo, and Macedonia (1993–2000).
or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. ...
Note the bombing of 1988: Pan Am Flight 103 Bombing over Lockerbie,
Scotland
Winston_Smith
>On 3/26/2011 9:45 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2011 00:31:20 +0100, Real Capitalist<nos...@nobody.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On top of this, she was also a disgusting Methamphetamine addict.
>>>
>>> An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss
>>> Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss
>>> Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which
>>> Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
>>>
>>> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she
>>> could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs.
>>> Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and
>>> felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that
>>> an individual should take help."
>>
>> If I'm forced to buy something at gun point, why is it evil to take
>> delivery of it?
>
>False analogy. You don't "buy" Social Security or Medicare. Likewise,
>you don't pay your taxes "at gun point," any more than you comply with,
>say, the laws prohibiting murder "at gun point."
I willingly obey the laws against murder because I believe it is
wrong. I do not believe in the nature or magnitude of my "voluntary"
SS, Medicare and IRS "contributions". I pay them because they will
put my ass in jail if I don't. Put to a popular vote, I'm sure most
people would agree with me.
>Even though Rand's stated ideals were wrongheaded, simplistic and naive,
>she still made herself a hypocrite by disdaining to follow them in her
>own life.
As the article says, writers don't make much. Especially not then.
Why should she not claim what was her right and, yes, what she paid
for under duress? Why does Obama not pay for his own vacations, as he
is clearly affluent enough to do, instead of taking them on the
taxpayers dime?
God, are liberals still that afraid of her writings?