Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
(OT) Turns out it was known at least two weeks ago that Gen. Petraus was in an affair
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Jeff Strickland
Nov 12, 2012, 4:10:33 PM11/12/12
to
They are reporting today that the FBI has been investigating Gen. Petraus
for several months, and it is now known that people high in the government
knew that shit was about to hit the fan. The inference is that the
Administration kept the lid on this because it would have hurt the campaign.
Some are saying that there is no way an investigation of this sort could be
conducted without the President knowing about it.
Does anybody besides me not believe Obama on almost any subject? Libya was a
flash mob. Yeah, right. They can investigate Petraus for months and Obama
does not know. Yeah, right.
for several months, and it is now known that people high in the government
knew that shit was about to hit the fan. The inference is that the
Administration kept the lid on this because it would have hurt the campaign.
Some are saying that there is no way an investigation of this sort could be
conducted without the President knowing about it.
Does anybody besides me not believe Obama on almost any subject? Libya was a
flash mob. Yeah, right. They can investigate Petraus for months and Obama
does not know. Yeah, right.
Message has been deleted
SMS
Nov 12, 2012, 5:09:16 PM11/12/12
to
On 11/12/2012 1:10 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> Does anybody besides me not believe Obama on almost any subject?
Pretty sure that you're the only one.
> Does anybody besides me not believe Obama on almost any subject?
Jeff Strickland
Nov 12, 2012, 5:10:32 PM11/12/12
to
"Conscience" <nobama@göv.com> wrote in message
news:k7rqgm$k1d$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 2012-11-12 13:10:33 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
> debacle was a staged ambassador kidnapping gone bad. The "exchange" was
> to be with the blind sheik behind the WTC bombing. Should this pan out,
> we could/should be talking impeachment.
>
I have been hearing today that the Embassy Annex was being used to house
some manner of al-Qaeda operatives, I have not heard that the blind sheik
was involved. We are not supposed to do stuff like this, and if it turns out
to be true then there is big trouble brewwing.
Message has been deleted
Jeff Strickland
Nov 12, 2012, 6:01:06 PM11/12/12
to
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:50a1738c$0$26862$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> On 11/12/2012 1:10 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> Does anybody besides me not believe Obama on almost any subject?
>
> Pretty sure that you're the only one.
>
Your lying sack of shit president surpressed vital facts, and lied about
>
>> Does anybody besides me not believe Obama on almost any subject?
>
> Pretty sure that you're the only one.
>
other facts that he knew he was lying about. He knew before he went to bed
on 9/11/12 that the attack on the Lybian compound was not a response to a
video. Then he went on record the very next day saying it was a flash mob,
and then continued with the flash mob story for more than two weeks.
Petreaus knew it was not a flash mob, and he told Blackwell that it was not
a flash mob yet he told a congressional committee that it was a flash mob,
and the only reason he would do such a thing is because his boss asked him
to cover up something.
Today it is reported that the embassy annex was in fact a CIA jail that was
holding al-Qaeda operatives, and these operatives were the real targed of
the attack on the embassy compound.
All we need now is 18 minutes of blank tape, and we have a presidential
conspiracy like nothing since Watergate. Obama has a problem here, he has a
serious problem IF the main stream media does its job and covers this.
If Petreaus had told the congressional committee _before_ the election that
the embassy annex was being used as a CIA jail, then this would have sunk
Obama's dream of a second term. Don't you see it as even a little bit fishy
that the guy in charge of the CIA would be mired in scandal less than a week
_after_ the election? By coming out, he (Petreaus) has nothing to hide
anymore. He cannot be blackmailed to keep silent, and if he goes public with
confirmation of the assertions that are floating around, then Obama will be
in deep doo doo.
Isn't ironic that the Top Dog of the CIA is blackmailed by his own
government?
SMS
Nov 12, 2012, 6:18:40 PM11/12/12
to
On 11/12/2012 2:10 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
<snip>
> I have been hearing today that the Embassy Annex was being used to house
> some manner of al-Qaeda operatives, I have not heard that the blind
> sheik was involved. We are not supposed to do stuff like this, and if it
> turns out to be true then there is big trouble brewwing.
Check the Washington Times, Examiner, Fox News, sodahead.com, and World
Net Daily. If they state that this is true then you can be certain that
it's not true.
The best thing to do right now would be for the House Republicans to
institute impeachment proceedings against Obama. It worked out so well
for them the last time that there's no downside in trying again. Maybe
they could alienate the rest of the military with this kind of insanity.
It's to the point where all the normal people in the country are just
inured to the lies of the far right. There's no point even getting upset
about them anymore. Leave Donald Trump and Karl Rove alone and get on
with the life in the real world.
Personally I think the worst lie of the Romney campaign was that Obama
was undermining the military vote. That would have been a dumb thing for
Obama to do since based on campaign contribution data, the military
heavily favored Obama over Romney. Especially insensitive to the
military personnel was the Republicans blocking the Veteran Job corps Act.
<snip>
> I have been hearing today that the Embassy Annex was being used to house
> some manner of al-Qaeda operatives, I have not heard that the blind
> sheik was involved. We are not supposed to do stuff like this, and if it
> turns out to be true then there is big trouble brewwing.
Net Daily. If they state that this is true then you can be certain that
it's not true.
The best thing to do right now would be for the House Republicans to
institute impeachment proceedings against Obama. It worked out so well
for them the last time that there's no downside in trying again. Maybe
they could alienate the rest of the military with this kind of insanity.
It's to the point where all the normal people in the country are just
inured to the lies of the far right. There's no point even getting upset
about them anymore. Leave Donald Trump and Karl Rove alone and get on
with the life in the real world.
Personally I think the worst lie of the Romney campaign was that Obama
was undermining the military vote. That would have been a dumb thing for
Obama to do since based on campaign contribution data, the military
heavily favored Obama over Romney. Especially insensitive to the
military personnel was the Republicans blocking the Veteran Job corps Act.
SMS
Nov 12, 2012, 6:32:04 PM11/12/12
to
On 11/12/2012 3:01 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> Today it is reported that the embassy annex was in fact a CIA jail that
> was holding al-Qaeda operatives,
Is "today it is reported" the same as Faux News' "Some people say?" Was
> Today it is reported that the embassy annex was in fact a CIA jail that
> was holding al-Qaeda operatives,
it a reputable source that reported this, or was it WND, breitbart, WSJ,
Fox News, or one of the other wacko "news" organizations?
The fact that there might have been a couple of militants being held in
the CIA annex is old news, and it is no secret. In hindsight the CIA
should have requested military reinforcements for the CIA annex, or
flown the militants somewhere else to be held. Perhaps this reflects
badly on Obama's choice for CIA director, but that's a long way from an
impeachable offense.
Message has been deleted
Fat-Dumb and Happy
Nov 12, 2012, 6:45:22 PM11/12/12
to
Jeff Strickland
Nov 12, 2012, 6:45:11 PM11/12/12
to
news:50a186f4$0$26841$742e...@news.sonic.net...
The facts are that the CIA denies that it had a holding facility in
Benghazi. They _did_ request reinforcements, well the embassy did, we don't
know that the CIA did, or not. But the CIA was not officially operating
there, and the facility was listed as an embassy site, not a CIA site.
Broadwell was telling people in her speaking engagements that prisoners were
being held at the annex, and the CIA contradicts what she has said.
Additionally, Petreaus was telling Congress that the attack on the embassy
and the annex were a flashmob, but we already know _now_ that this story was
false. For Petreaus to be spreading this story -- the flash mob -- is not
what Petreaus must have known to be true, therefore he lied because he was
1.) blackmailed by the scandal he was increasingly embroiled in, or 2.) he
was protecting the interests of the CIA because if it got out that Americans
were operating a CIA detention facility and was lying to that end.
ALL OF THIS must have been known to the White House.
Benghazi. They _did_ request reinforcements, well the embassy did, we don't
know that the CIA did, or not. But the CIA was not officially operating
there, and the facility was listed as an embassy site, not a CIA site.
Broadwell was telling people in her speaking engagements that prisoners were
being held at the annex, and the CIA contradicts what she has said.
Additionally, Petreaus was telling Congress that the attack on the embassy
and the annex were a flashmob, but we already know _now_ that this story was
false. For Petreaus to be spreading this story -- the flash mob -- is not
what Petreaus must have known to be true, therefore he lied because he was
1.) blackmailed by the scandal he was increasingly embroiled in, or 2.) he
was protecting the interests of the CIA because if it got out that Americans
were operating a CIA detention facility and was lying to that end.
ALL OF THIS must have been known to the White House.
Jeff Strickland
Nov 12, 2012, 6:48:44 PM11/12/12
to
news:k7s1bh$30h$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 2012-11-12 15:01:06 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
>
> It's now being reported that 59 districts in Philadelphia report zero
> votes for Romney. Zero.
>
Of f---ing course there were no votes for Romney in Philly, did you see the
size of the doormen they used at the polling places?
THE DOORMAN
Let me get that door for you, you're voting for Obama, right?
VOTER
I was undecided until you helped me open the door. You're gonna let me out,
right?
THE DOORMAN
That depends on who you vote for.
> On 2012-11-12 15:01:06 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>> Isn't ironic that the Top Dog of the CIA is blackmailed by his own
>> government?
>
> Not for this faux-president.
>
>> Isn't ironic that the Top Dog of the CIA is blackmailed by his own
>> government?
>
>
> It's now being reported that 59 districts in Philadelphia report zero
> votes for Romney. Zero.
>
Of f---ing course there were no votes for Romney in Philly, did you see the
size of the doormen they used at the polling places?
THE DOORMAN
Let me get that door for you, you're voting for Obama, right?
VOTER
I was undecided until you helped me open the door. You're gonna let me out,
right?
THE DOORMAN
That depends on who you vote for.
SMS
Nov 12, 2012, 9:00:19 PM11/12/12
to
On 11/12/2012 3:48 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> Of f---ing course there were no votes for Romney in Philly, did you see
> the size of the doormen they used at the polling places?
You do realize the demographics of those areas don't you? 100%
> Of f---ing course there were no votes for Romney in Philly, did you see
> the size of the doormen they used at the polling places?
Democratic, 100% black, and inner city.
"Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia who
has studied African American precincts, said he had occasionally seen
100 percent of the vote go for the Democratic candidate. Chicago and
Atlanta each had precincts that registered no votes for Republican Sen.
John McCain in 2008."
While most minorities vote heavily Democratic, blacks have always been
the most reliable Democratic voters. The presence of an African-American
candidate and the fact that these were not precincts in wealthy or
middle-class suburbs where you might find some conservative blacks, were
why this happened.
Don't look for something sinister in everything that happens in the
world. But you've never been one to care about facts and evidence, so
why should you change now?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
SMS
Nov 13, 2012, 6:30:25 AM11/13/12
to
On 11/12/2012 1:10 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> They are reporting today that the FBI has been investigating Gen.
> Petraus for several months, and it is now known that people high in the
> government knew that shit was about to hit the fan. The inference is
> that the Administration kept the lid on this because it would have hurt
> the campaign. Some are saying that there is no way an investigation of
> this sort could be conducted without the President knowing about it.
The FBI has been very wary about playing politics ever since Hoover
> They are reporting today that the FBI has been investigating Gen.
> Petraus for several months, and it is now known that people high in the
> government knew that shit was about to hit the fan. The inference is
> that the Administration kept the lid on this because it would have hurt
> the campaign. Some are saying that there is no way an investigation of
> this sort could be conducted without the President knowing about it.
left. But Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor knew about the
affair before the election. He could have played politics and
compromised the FBI investigation by blabbing about it. To his credit,
he didn't. He'll probably get flak for his decision from other Republicans.
Perhaps Cantor was looking out for himself as well, since presumably the
FBI agent that told him about the investigation should not have done so.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jeff Strickland
Nov 13, 2012, 8:34:30 PM11/13/12
to
news:50a22f51$0$26885$742e...@news.sonic.net...
The investigation of Petreaus has been over for months. Cantor did not find
out about it until <about> a week before the election.
Do you REALLY believe that Mueller would investigate the Director of the
CIA, and _NOT_ tell his boss, Eric Holder, what he was doing?
Petreaus was being blackmailed, but not by those that we would expect him to
be blackmailed by. He said that the attack on the embassy compound in Libya
was a flash mob, but he knew damn well that it was terrorists. He either
lied to congress with the line about the flash mob because the
Administration had put the squeeze on him, or he was covering the illegal
activities of the CIA. Assume the latter for a moment... Do you REALLY
believe that the Director of the CIA would operate a clandestine jail in an
embassy WITHOUT the knowledge of his boss.
There are several problems here.
1. Obama issued an Executive Order -- he got mad and stomped his feet --
about the CIA operating jails around the globe, and he said, "this must
stop." That's all well and good, or not the argument here. But, here we are
almost 4 years later and the CIA is operating clandestine jails around the
globe. Either Obama is a lying sack of shit when he issues executive orders,
OR he is surrounded by people that say X and do Y.
2. Somebody in the Administration knew of the FBI investigation, and 1. kept
it quiet, and 2. used it to get Petreaus to tow the line about the flash
mob. It strains credibility to believe that the FBI can investigate the CIA,
the Director no less, and not tell anybody higher in the chain of command
what was going on.
3. Petreaus has a long and distinguished career. One does not get to his
position being a lying, cheating, pile of crap. If he was running a CIA jail
in Libya, he was not doing it on his own ESPECIALLY after the Right
Honorable President issued an executive order to close all of the CIA jails.
If there are CIA jails, they are there because the executive order was
issued with a wink and a nod.
out about it until <about> a week before the election.
Do you REALLY believe that Mueller would investigate the Director of the
CIA, and _NOT_ tell his boss, Eric Holder, what he was doing?
Petreaus was being blackmailed, but not by those that we would expect him to
be blackmailed by. He said that the attack on the embassy compound in Libya
was a flash mob, but he knew damn well that it was terrorists. He either
lied to congress with the line about the flash mob because the
Administration had put the squeeze on him, or he was covering the illegal
activities of the CIA. Assume the latter for a moment... Do you REALLY
believe that the Director of the CIA would operate a clandestine jail in an
embassy WITHOUT the knowledge of his boss.
There are several problems here.
1. Obama issued an Executive Order -- he got mad and stomped his feet --
about the CIA operating jails around the globe, and he said, "this must
stop." That's all well and good, or not the argument here. But, here we are
almost 4 years later and the CIA is operating clandestine jails around the
globe. Either Obama is a lying sack of shit when he issues executive orders,
OR he is surrounded by people that say X and do Y.
2. Somebody in the Administration knew of the FBI investigation, and 1. kept
it quiet, and 2. used it to get Petreaus to tow the line about the flash
mob. It strains credibility to believe that the FBI can investigate the CIA,
the Director no less, and not tell anybody higher in the chain of command
what was going on.
3. Petreaus has a long and distinguished career. One does not get to his
position being a lying, cheating, pile of crap. If he was running a CIA jail
in Libya, he was not doing it on his own ESPECIALLY after the Right
Honorable President issued an executive order to close all of the CIA jails.
If there are CIA jails, they are there because the executive order was
issued with a wink and a nod.
Message has been deleted
dizzy
Nov 13, 2012, 10:34:05 PM11/13/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (snip paranoid whacko nonsense)
>There are several problems here.
Several problems with your head, yes.
Tell us, Jeffy, approximately how old do you believe the Earth to be?
> (snip paranoid whacko nonsense)
>There are several problems here.
Tell us, Jeffy, approximately how old do you believe the Earth to be?
Message has been deleted
Jeff Strickland
Nov 14, 2012, 9:41:41 PM11/14/12
to
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u446a8t9slmpoucd0...@4ax.com...
You do know that there was an attack on the embassy compound and its annex
that is located about 2 miles away, right?
You know that the attack was blamed on a flash mob, right?
You kinow that 4 Americans were killed and 3 others are injured, right?
These are all facts that can not be disputed.
You know that the Brits pulled their embassy staff out of Benghazi about 6
weeks befrore the attacks on the American Embassy, right? You know that the
Brits left weapons and vehicles with the Americans instead of shipping them
home, right? (They did this because they wanted to get the Hell out of Dodge
in a hurry, and didn't want to wait for the transport equipment to come and
get the stuff they left at the American Emassy.) This is also a fact that
cannot be disputed. The American Embassy was attacked earlier this year,
once in April and again in June -- the dispute here is that I may have
gotten the months worng, but the prior attacks did indeed happen. (It was
these attacks and other intelligence that caused the Brits to remove their
staff from Benghazi.)
So, nobody in his right mind believes the crap about the flash mob. Indeed,
the flash mob story is the whacko nonsense.
Now we are finding out that the embassy annex was being operated by the CIA
as a detention facility. Surely the Director of the CIA would know that
there was a detention facility in Benghazi.
You are the one with the whacko nonsense rattling around in your head. By
any measure, the whacko nonsense is in there all by itself.
Jeff Strickland
Nov 14, 2012, 9:57:50 PM11/14/12
to
news:k7vakn$3s8$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 2012-11-13 17:02:40 -0800, dbu <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> said:
>> We need the truth, even if it leads all the way to the WH.
>
> If???
>
It strains credibility to believe that it does not lead to the White House,
specifically the Oval Office.
Can the FBI _really_ investigate the DIRECTOR of the CIA without telling the
chain of command what they are doing? Really? I think not. And, IF it can
happen, then as the Attorney General, I would be pissed that my people are
investigating the highest official in another agency and not tell me what
they are doing. If the FBI was investigating the parking lot attendant at
some government parking lot, then maybe I would not want to be bothered with
what is going on. But if there was an investigation of the Speaker of the
House or the Senate Majority Leader (or the Senate Minority Leader for that
matter), then you can be damn sure that I would want to know what was going
on.
I do not believe for a nanosecond that Mueller did not tell Holder that the
FBI was looking into an affair between Petraeus and a woman-not-his-wife.
Assuming for a moment that it is not possible that the FBI could investigate
the CIA without telling anybody higher up on the food chain, then Holder
would have to keep this a secret from HIS boss. If Holder kept this a secret
from his boss, then if I was Holder's boss, Holder would be looking for a
new job because this secret is big. Huge.
If Holder was keeping a secret from his boss, but showed up at the CIA (or
called), and said, "I know you are boinking somebody on the side, and if you
know what's good for you, then you will say that it was a flash mob."
Petraeus was blackmailed by the Administration, at least by Holder because
Mueller doesn't have the power to blackmail Petraeus. Holder does, Obama
does. Anybody else that thought they could blackmail the Director of the CIA
would be missing before the sun rose again.
It just is not plausible to believe that Petraeus would testify that it was
a flashmob UNLESS he was under threat of blackmail.
> On 2012-11-13 17:02:40 -0800, dbu <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> said:
>> We need the truth, even if it leads all the way to the WH.
>
> If???
>
It strains credibility to believe that it does not lead to the White House,
specifically the Oval Office.
Can the FBI _really_ investigate the DIRECTOR of the CIA without telling the
chain of command what they are doing? Really? I think not. And, IF it can
happen, then as the Attorney General, I would be pissed that my people are
investigating the highest official in another agency and not tell me what
they are doing. If the FBI was investigating the parking lot attendant at
some government parking lot, then maybe I would not want to be bothered with
what is going on. But if there was an investigation of the Speaker of the
House or the Senate Majority Leader (or the Senate Minority Leader for that
matter), then you can be damn sure that I would want to know what was going
on.
I do not believe for a nanosecond that Mueller did not tell Holder that the
FBI was looking into an affair between Petraeus and a woman-not-his-wife.
Assuming for a moment that it is not possible that the FBI could investigate
the CIA without telling anybody higher up on the food chain, then Holder
would have to keep this a secret from HIS boss. If Holder kept this a secret
from his boss, then if I was Holder's boss, Holder would be looking for a
new job because this secret is big. Huge.
If Holder was keeping a secret from his boss, but showed up at the CIA (or
called), and said, "I know you are boinking somebody on the side, and if you
know what's good for you, then you will say that it was a flash mob."
Petraeus was blackmailed by the Administration, at least by Holder because
Mueller doesn't have the power to blackmail Petraeus. Holder does, Obama
does. Anybody else that thought they could blackmail the Director of the CIA
would be missing before the sun rose again.
It just is not plausible to believe that Petraeus would testify that it was
a flashmob UNLESS he was under threat of blackmail.
Message has been deleted
dizzy
Nov 15, 2012, 9:26:10 PM11/15/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Whacko nonsense? Really?
I stopped reading right there, whacko.
>Whacko nonsense? Really?
I stopped reading right there, whacko.
dizzy
Nov 15, 2012, 9:29:49 PM11/15/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It strains credibility to believe that it does not lead to the White House,
>specifically the Oval Office.
Hey, Jeffy, do you really use regular gas in a car designed for
>It strains credibility to believe that it does not lead to the White House,
>specifically the Oval Office.
premium, because you are "dollar driven"? Is that $5 a month you save
worth the sub-optimal performance from you car? Some people might
just brown-bag it to work once more a month, if they wanted to save
save such a "substantial" amount.
Jeff Strickland
Nov 15, 2012, 11:07:49 PM11/15/12
to
news:a39ba89vop729rjq0...@4ax.com...
I don't use regular gas in a car designed for premium.
Regular in a car that takes Premium actually costs more. Your challenge is
to explain why.
Regular in a car that takes Premium actually costs more. Your challenge is
to explain why.
dizzy
Nov 16, 2012, 7:31:07 PM11/16/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hey, Jeffy, do you really use regular gas in a car designed for
>> premium, because you are "dollar driven"? Is that $5 a month you save
>> worth the sub-optimal performance from you car? Some people might
>> just brown-bag it to work once more a month, if they wanted to save
>> save such a "substantial" amount.
>
>I don't use regular gas in a car designed for premium.
That's not what you wrote in the BMW group, "dollar driven" Jeffy.
>> Hey, Jeffy, do you really use regular gas in a car designed for
>> premium, because you are "dollar driven"? Is that $5 a month you save
>> worth the sub-optimal performance from you car? Some people might
>> just brown-bag it to work once more a month, if they wanted to save
>> save such a "substantial" amount.
>
>I don't use regular gas in a car designed for premium.
dizzy
Nov 16, 2012, 7:34:00 PM11/16/12
to
dizzy <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Tell us, Jeffy, approximately how old do you believe the Earth to be?
Why no answer, here, Jeffy?
>Tell us, Jeffy, approximately how old do you believe the Earth to be?
Hey, Jeffy, Wikipedia states that the Earth is about 4.54 billion
years old. Is this blaspheme, Jeffy?
Jeff Strickland
Nov 16, 2012, 9:41:19 PM11/16/12
to
news:skmda8p36398p0omt...@4ax.com...
You're a lying sack of shit. I have written (many times) that premium costs
less than regular. I have explained in detail why this is true. If one
drives upwards of 15,00 miles per year, and gets 2 mpg better with premium,
then the savings will approach (easily) $200.
You have me confused with some other idiot. I don't have you confused with
any idiot at all, you are the same idiot you have always been.
less than regular. I have explained in detail why this is true. If one
drives upwards of 15,00 miles per year, and gets 2 mpg better with premium,
then the savings will approach (easily) $200.
You have me confused with some other idiot. I don't have you confused with
any idiot at all, you are the same idiot you have always been.
dizzy
Nov 18, 2012, 10:27:17 AM11/18/12
to
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"dollar driven" idiot), Jeffy.
"I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00."
- Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
<g5qb9q$g18$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
"I use 89 instead of 91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a
tank full of gas. It ain't much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few
times to calculate the cost per mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel,
and with the cost per gallon difference of a dime, I found that the
cost per mile was nearly identical, with the 89 octane gas getting a
slight edge. I have to run the test again to verify my
earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00 on a
tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the
small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost
as being less performance."
- Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
<g5r731$3tv$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>You have me confused with some other idiot.
So you agree that an "idiot" wrote the above two posts, Jeffy?
*chuckle*
>I don't have you confused with
>any idiot at all, you are the same idiot you have always been.
That's very ironic, Jeffy, considering that, once again, I have
demonstrated that it is you who is the idiot (and liar).
>dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey, Jeffy, do you really use regular gas in a car designed for
>>>> premium, because you are "dollar driven"? Is that $5 a month you save
>>>> worth the sub-optimal performance from you car? Some people might
>>>> just brown-bag it to work once more a month, if they wanted to save
>>>> save such a "substantial" amount.
>>>
>>>I don't use regular gas in a car designed for premium.
>>
>> That's not what you wrote in the BMW group, "dollar driven" Jeffy.
>
>You're a lying sack of shit.
Nope. I'm afraid that it is you who are a lying sack of shit (and a
>>>>
>>>> Hey, Jeffy, do you really use regular gas in a car designed for
>>>> premium, because you are "dollar driven"? Is that $5 a month you save
>>>> worth the sub-optimal performance from you car? Some people might
>>>> just brown-bag it to work once more a month, if they wanted to save
>>>> save such a "substantial" amount.
>>>
>>>I don't use regular gas in a car designed for premium.
>>
>> That's not what you wrote in the BMW group, "dollar driven" Jeffy.
>
>You're a lying sack of shit.
"dollar driven" idiot), Jeffy.
"I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00."
- Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
<g5qb9q$g18$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
"I use 89 instead of 91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a
tank full of gas. It ain't much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few
times to calculate the cost per mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel,
and with the cost per gallon difference of a dime, I found that the
cost per mile was nearly identical, with the 89 octane gas getting a
slight edge. I have to run the test again to verify my
earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00 on a
tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the
small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost
as being less performance."
- Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
<g5r731$3tv$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>You have me confused with some other idiot.
*chuckle*
>I don't have you confused with
>any idiot at all, you are the same idiot you have always been.
demonstrated that it is you who is the idiot (and liar).
dizzy
Nov 18, 2012, 10:29:53 AM11/18/12
to
dizzy wrote:
Jeffy, please answer these questions. We want to see your massive
knowledge and intellect on display.
knowledge and intellect on display.
Jeff Strickland
Nov 18, 2012, 1:02:30 PM11/18/12
to
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:fguha8lso2mfdd0n4...@4ax.com...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, Jeffy, do you really use regular gas in a car designed for
>>>>> premium, because you are "dollar driven"? Is that $5 a month you save
>>>>> worth the sub-optimal performance from you car? Some people might
>>>>> just brown-bag it to work once more a month, if they wanted to save
>>>>> save such a "substantial" amount.
>>>>
>>>>I don't use regular gas in a car designed for premium.
>>>
>>> That's not what you wrote in the BMW group, "dollar driven" Jeffy.
>>
>>You're a lying sack of shit.
>
> Nope. I'm afraid that it is you who are a lying sack of shit (and a
> "dollar driven" idiot), Jeffy.
>
> "I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00."
> - Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
> <g5qb9q$g18$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>
89 is not regular, it's the mid grade. It is also the grade that is called
>
>>dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, Jeffy, do you really use regular gas in a car designed for
>>>>> premium, because you are "dollar driven"? Is that $5 a month you save
>>>>> worth the sub-optimal performance from you car? Some people might
>>>>> just brown-bag it to work once more a month, if they wanted to save
>>>>> save such a "substantial" amount.
>>>>
>>>>I don't use regular gas in a car designed for premium.
>>>
>>> That's not what you wrote in the BMW group, "dollar driven" Jeffy.
>>
>>You're a lying sack of shit.
>
> Nope. I'm afraid that it is you who are a lying sack of shit (and a
> "dollar driven" idiot), Jeffy.
>
> "I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00."
> - Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
> <g5qb9q$g18$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>
for according to the sticker on the gas cap AND the Owner's Manual.
Your inability to properly track who said what when only shows that you are
a lying sack of shit.
Message has been deleted
dizzy
Nov 18, 2012, 1:41:04 PM11/18/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Jeff Strickland <crwl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> "dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, Jeffy, do you really use regular gas in a car designed for
>>>>>> premium, because you are "dollar driven"? Is that $5 a month you save
>>>>>> worth the sub-optimal performance from you car? Some people might
>>>>>> just brown-bag it to work once more a month, if they wanted to save
>>>>>> save such a "substantial" amount.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't use regular gas in a car designed for premium.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what you wrote in the BMW group, "dollar driven" Jeffy.
>>>
>>>You're a lying sack of shit.
>>
>> Nope. I'm afraid that it is you who are a lying sack of shit (and a
>> "dollar driven" idiot), Jeffy.
>>
>> "I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00."
>> - Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
>> <g5qb9q$g18$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>
>89 is not regular, it's the mid grade. It is also the grade that is called
>for according to the sticker on the gas cap AND the Owner's Manual.
You are a *fucking* liar, Jeffy. I have a 2000 3-series myself, and
the recommended minimum octane is 91.
Shall I quote from the owner's manual, Jeffy?
>Your inability to properly track who said what when only shows that you are
>a lying sack of shit.
Where, exactly, did I "lie", Jeffy?
Good gravy, your *shameless* lying, in the face of indisputable proof!
I quoted you exactly, even providing message ID's! I've proven what
I claimed, and your denial only shows that you are a lying piece of
shit.
It's amazing! Not only do you *lie* about what you posted in the BMW
group, you baselessly *lie* when you accuse me of lying! Utterly
shameless, you are!
Jesus doesn't like liars, Jeffy, and you are a filthy fucking liar
(and idiot) if ever there was one.
By the way, why did you snip and ignore the below quote, Jeffy? Do
you think you're fooling anyone, Jeffy, you lying, "dollar driven"
idiot?
"I use 89 instead of 91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a
tank full of gas. It ain't much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few
times to calculate the cost per mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel,
and with the cost per gallon difference of a dime, I found that the
cost per mile was nearly identical, with the 89 octane gas getting a
slight edge. I have to run the test again to verify my
earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00 on a
tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the
small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost
as being less performance."
How do feel now, Jeffy, now that everyone reading this thread knows
that you are a *fucking liar*.
How do you feel, Jeffy, now that everyone reading this thread knows
that you are a piece of shit who falsely accuses others of lying.
>"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Jeff Strickland <crwl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> "dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, Jeffy, do you really use regular gas in a car designed for
>>>>>> premium, because you are "dollar driven"? Is that $5 a month you save
>>>>>> worth the sub-optimal performance from you car? Some people might
>>>>>> just brown-bag it to work once more a month, if they wanted to save
>>>>>> save such a "substantial" amount.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't use regular gas in a car designed for premium.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what you wrote in the BMW group, "dollar driven" Jeffy.
>>>
>>>You're a lying sack of shit.
>>
>> Nope. I'm afraid that it is you who are a lying sack of shit (and a
>> "dollar driven" idiot), Jeffy.
>>
>> "I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00."
>> - Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
>> <g5qb9q$g18$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>
>89 is not regular, it's the mid grade. It is also the grade that is called
>for according to the sticker on the gas cap AND the Owner's Manual.
the recommended minimum octane is 91.
Shall I quote from the owner's manual, Jeffy?
>Your inability to properly track who said what when only shows that you are
>a lying sack of shit.
Good gravy, your *shameless* lying, in the face of indisputable proof!
I quoted you exactly, even providing message ID's! I've proven what
I claimed, and your denial only shows that you are a lying piece of
shit.
It's amazing! Not only do you *lie* about what you posted in the BMW
group, you baselessly *lie* when you accuse me of lying! Utterly
shameless, you are!
Jesus doesn't like liars, Jeffy, and you are a filthy fucking liar
(and idiot) if ever there was one.
By the way, why did you snip and ignore the below quote, Jeffy? Do
you think you're fooling anyone, Jeffy, you lying, "dollar driven"
idiot?
"I use 89 instead of 91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a
tank full of gas. It ain't much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few
times to calculate the cost per mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel,
and with the cost per gallon difference of a dime, I found that the
cost per mile was nearly identical, with the 89 octane gas getting a
slight edge. I have to run the test again to verify my
earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00 on a
tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the
small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost
as being less performance."
- Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
<g5r731$3tv$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
How do feel now, Jeffy, now that everyone reading this thread knows
that you are a *fucking liar*.
How do you feel, Jeffy, now that everyone reading this thread knows
that you are a piece of shit who falsely accuses others of lying.
dizzy
Nov 18, 2012, 1:42:09 PM11/18/12
to
dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>"I use 89 instead of 91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a
>tank full of gas. It ain't much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few
>times to calculate the cost per mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel,
>and with the cost per gallon difference of a dime, I found that the
>cost per mile was nearly identical, with the 89 octane gas getting a
>slight edge. I have to run the test again to verify my
>earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00 on a
>tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the
>small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
>
>Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost
>as being less performance."
>- Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
><g5r731$3tv$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>
>>You have me confused with some other idiot.
>
>So you agree that an "idiot" wrote the above two posts, Jeffy?
I'd like an answer to this question, Jeffy.
>"I use 89 instead of 91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a
>tank full of gas. It ain't much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few
>times to calculate the cost per mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel,
>and with the cost per gallon difference of a dime, I found that the
>cost per mile was nearly identical, with the 89 octane gas getting a
>slight edge. I have to run the test again to verify my
>earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00 on a
>tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the
>small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
>
>Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost
>as being less performance."
>- Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
><g5r731$3tv$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>
>>You have me confused with some other idiot.
>
>So you agree that an "idiot" wrote the above two posts, Jeffy?
>*chuckle*
Message has been deleted
dizzy
Nov 19, 2012, 7:46:52 PM11/19/12
to
dbu <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> Conscience <nobama@g�v.com> wrote:
A couple of drooling morons, pissed-off at me for slapping-around
their fellow rightard Jeffy as a fucking idiot and a shameless liar.
I suppose the fact that Jeffy is an idiot and a liar wasn't news to
anyone, but still...
> Conscience <nobama@g�v.com> wrote:
A couple of drooling morons, pissed-off at me for slapping-around
their fellow rightard Jeffy as a fucking idiot and a shameless liar.
I suppose the fact that Jeffy is an idiot and a liar wasn't news to
anyone, but still...
dizzy
Nov 19, 2012, 7:54:52 PM11/19/12
to
dizzy <di...@nospam.com> wrote:
>How do feel now, Jeffy, now that everyone reading this thread knows
>that you are a *fucking liar*.
>
>How do you feel, Jeffy, now that everyone reading this thread knows
>that you are a piece of shit who falsely accuses others of lying.
Jesus reads every filthy lie that you write, Jeffy.
>How do feel now, Jeffy, now that everyone reading this thread knows
>that you are a *fucking liar*.
>
>How do you feel, Jeffy, now that everyone reading this thread knows
>that you are a piece of shit who falsely accuses others of lying.
Every time you call an honest person a "liar", He takes note, Jeffy.
Jeff Strickland
Nov 19, 2012, 7:55:07 PM11/19/12
to
news:s6kla8t2l8a15r1mq...@4ax.com...
> dbu <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
You have said nothing of any value, and nothing that is correct.
Try actually saying something, then we can see if you slapped anybody
around. You come to the game at least a point down -- who names theirself
Dizzy and expects to be taken seriously? Really, who does that?
Aren't you the guy with a window in your navel so you can see where you are
going?
> dbu <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
>
> A couple of drooling morons, pissed-off at me for slapping-around
> their fellow rightard Jeffy as a fucking idiot and a shameless liar.
>
> I suppose the fact that Jeffy is an idiot and a liar wasn't news to
> anyone, but still...
>
Slap around? Really?
>> Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
>
> A couple of drooling morons, pissed-off at me for slapping-around
> their fellow rightard Jeffy as a fucking idiot and a shameless liar.
>
> I suppose the fact that Jeffy is an idiot and a liar wasn't news to
> anyone, but still...
>
You have said nothing of any value, and nothing that is correct.
Try actually saying something, then we can see if you slapped anybody
around. You come to the game at least a point down -- who names theirself
Dizzy and expects to be taken seriously? Really, who does that?
Aren't you the guy with a window in your navel so you can see where you are
going?
Jeff Strickland
Nov 19, 2012, 7:57:15 PM11/19/12
to
news:cokla8dfau8gerf5o...@4ax.com...
Let me know when I call an honest person a liar. I'm not aware that I have
done that. You are not an honest person, or if you are then you have not
shown it.
done that. You are not an honest person, or if you are then you have not
shown it.
dizzy
Nov 19, 2012, 8:02:23 PM11/19/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You have said nothing of any value, and nothing that is correct.
I stopped reading right there, Jeffy. We've seen this exact same
>You have said nothing of any value, and nothing that is correct.
thing from you before. When it has been proven that you are an idiot
and a liar, you just spew more lies - your "you said nothing" lies.
Do you think you are fooling anyone with your ridiculous lies, Jeffy?
What would Jesus say, Jeffy?
"I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00."
- Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
<g5qb9q$g18$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
"I use 89 instead of 91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a
tank full of gas. It ain't much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few
times to calculate the cost per mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel,
and with the cost per gallon difference of a dime, I found that the
cost per mile was nearly identical, with the 89 octane gas getting a
slight edge. I have to run the test again to verify my
earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00 on a
tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the
small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost
as being less performance."
tank full of gas. It ain't much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few
times to calculate the cost per mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel,
and with the cost per gallon difference of a dime, I found that the
cost per mile was nearly identical, with the 89 octane gas getting a
slight edge. I have to run the test again to verify my
earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00 on a
tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the
small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost
as being less performance."
- Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
<g5r731$3tv$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
dizzy
Nov 19, 2012, 8:06:34 PM11/19/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jesus reads every filthy lie that you write, Jeffy.
>>
>> Every time you call an honest person a "liar", He takes note, Jeffy.
>
>Let me know when I call an honest person a liar.
I already did let you know, Jeffy.
>> Jesus reads every filthy lie that you write, Jeffy.
>>
>> Every time you call an honest person a "liar", He takes note, Jeffy.
>
>Let me know when I call an honest person a liar.
>I'm not aware that I have done that.
> (snip more lies)
dizzy
Nov 19, 2012, 8:08:01 PM11/19/12
to
Jeff Strickland
Nov 19, 2012, 8:39:44 PM11/19/12
to
news:l9lla8t74kisfoobp...@4ax.com...
you're an idiot. I already established that.
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You have said nothing of any value, and nothing that is correct.
>
> I stopped reading right there, Jeffy. We've seen this exact same
> thing from you before. When it has been proven that you are an idiot
> and a liar, you just spew more lies - your "you said nothing" lies.
>
> Do you think you are fooling anyone with your ridiculous lies, Jeffy?
>
> What would Jesus say, Jeffy?
>
>
>
> "I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00."
> - Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
> <g5qb9q$g18$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>
> "I use 89 instead of 91
>
You're an idiot. The cars take 89, I use 89. What's your problem? I forgot,
>
>>You have said nothing of any value, and nothing that is correct.
>
> I stopped reading right there, Jeffy. We've seen this exact same
> thing from you before. When it has been proven that you are an idiot
> and a liar, you just spew more lies - your "you said nothing" lies.
>
> Do you think you are fooling anyone with your ridiculous lies, Jeffy?
>
> What would Jesus say, Jeffy?
>
>
>
> "I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00."
> - Jeff Strickland in alt.autos.bmw, 7/18/08
> <g5qb9q$g18$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
>
> "I use 89 instead of 91
>
you're an idiot. I already established that.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages