How does a Palin/Beck ticket sound?
Cliff
http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983&WT.mc_n=JSAHG10
"How does a Palin/Beck ticket sound?"
[
Holbrook -
FREE SPEECH
JEAN YORK
How does this sound? Sarah Palin for president and Glenn Beck for vice
president?
These two are the standard bearers for political lunacy. Nevertheless, there is
a grassroots movement among the tea baggers to support their candidacy in 2012.
Why? Because the Palin/Beck ticket reflects the Tea Party�s political changes in
intensity with the phases of the moon.
Foxy News is the base of publicity operations for the tea baggers and the intent
is to broadcast their views 24/7. An hour with �Fox and Friends� demonstrates
that dumb can get a lot dumber without really trying.
Meanwhile, to keep the tea baggers in the fold, the Party of No is profiling
themselves to prove that conservatism R them. They�ve introduced a purity test
for one�s intellectual pleasure. Those passing the test have assured the Party
of No that they are free of moderate thoughts and especially free from sinister
or improper liberal views, hence becoming a candidate worthy of their support.
A purity test has a dark side. Before civil rights became law, purity meant free
form color saturation. Purifying or cleansing any segment of society is
dangerous and has no place in a democracy that�s becoming fragile at best.
What about the Party of No�s fearless leader? It seems that Boss Limbaugh is
being outfoxed by Beck. His fans may be turning elsewhere for their daily dose
of racial hatemongering. Beck is slowly replacing Boss Limbaugh in the hearts
and minds of America�s meanspirited bigots.
The game�s afoot, folks. Who will be the future of the GOP? The Party of No or
the Tea Party Clan? Or both?
......
]
ArmyOfDorkness
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:ub01j59fuukd9402b...@4ax.com...
Beck apparently likes the idea of a Beck-Palin ticket, but a Palin-Beck
ticket? Not so much.
"I was just thinking, what, I'm going to take a back seat to a chick?" Beck
quipped, to laughter from the studio. "Go shoot a bear, make some stew, I'm
hungry in here."
In an interview with Newsmax Palin "wouldn't rule out" running with the
controversial talk show host in 2012.
"So while she's considering it ... I just want her to know, I'm ruling it
out. A Palin-Beck ticket, I'm absolutely ruling it out," Beck said. "I'm
just saying, Beck-Palin, I'll consider. But Palin-Beck -- can you imagine
what an administration with the two of us would be like? She'd be yapping or
something, I'd say, 'I'm sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I'm not in the
kitchen.'
Middle Class Warrior
> ]
This would be a great ticket for Democrats, who would easily beat
these two nut jobs. Bring it on!
Jim Alder
news:ub01j59fuukd9402b...@4ax.com:
> How does this sound? Sarah Palin for president and Glenn Beck for vice
> president?
How does it sound? Like something you made up, ya little goofball.
> These two are the standard bearers for political lunacy. Nevertheless,
> there is a grassroots movement among the tea baggers to support their
> candidacy in 2012.
Where?
--
My girlfriend asked me "Have you been having
sex behind my back?"
I said "Who in the hell did you think it was?"
Lookout
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983&WT.mc_n=JSAHG10
> "How does a Palin/Beck ticket sound?"
>[
>Holbrook -
>FREE SPEECH
>JEAN YORK
>
>
>How does this sound? Sarah Palin for president and Glenn Beck for vice
>president?
Oh HELL yes
raamman
wrote:
> http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983&WT....
It sounds like a waste of a good opportunity to have a national debate
over policy issues, results and realistic projections. Good government
and good leadership will come as the result of good solid critical
thinking, not sound bytes.
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:ub01j59fuukd9402b...@4ax.com:
>
>> How does this sound? Sarah Palin for president and Glenn Beck for vice
>> president?
>
> How does it sound? Like something you made up, ya little goofball.
>
>> These two are the standard bearers for political lunacy. Nevertheless,
>> there is a grassroots movement among the tea baggers to support their
>> candidacy in 2012.
>
> Where?
Jim Alder
news:t184j5hr8fs29edv9...@4ax.com:
A 'grassroots movement' by liberal trolling nitwits, eh? You people are
getting more ridiculous every day.
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:t184j5hr8fs29edv9...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:09:27 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>news:ub01j59fuukd9402b...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> How does this sound? Sarah Palin for president and Glenn Beck for vice
>>>> president?
>>>
>>> How does it sound? Like something you made up, ya little goofball.
>>>
>>>> These two are the standard bearers for political lunacy. Nevertheless,
>>>> there is a grassroots movement among the tea baggers to support their
>>>> candidacy in 2012.
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ4LIB-Jbyg
>
> A 'grassroots movement' by liberal trolling nitwits, eh? You people are
>getting more ridiculous every day.
http://the44diaries.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/could-this-happen-palinbeck-2012-the-horror/
--
Cliff
Jim Alder
news:eg69j5lea7rtqq1hq...@4ax.com:
So when you said "grassroots movement among the tea baggers" you meant
lies from the leftwing? In other words, REAL teabaggers?
Timothy Horrigan
wrote:
> http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983&WT....
> [
> Holbrook -
> FREE SPEECH
> JEAN YORK
>
> How does this sound? Sarah Palin for president and Glenn Beck for vice
> president?
> These two are the standard bearers for political lunacy.
Sarah Plain has held political office and hence is vastly
overqualified to be on a ticket with Beck.
Daniel
wrote:
> http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983&WT....
Like doom for nobama. Of course, since nobama is one and done, it
doesn't matter who runs against him.
Daniel
That would be a first.
Cliff
"Sarah Palin for president and Glenn Beck for vice president".
Jim Alder
news:a02cj5pn821s4ao61...@4ax.com:
Yeah, exactly. Not Tea Party Republicans. Actual teabaggers, like you.
Glad we cleared that up.
Jim Alder
baeac0...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
Oh, it matters. Because that person will almost certainly be president for
four years.
Christopher Helms
wrote:
> http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983&WT....
> "How does a Palin/Beck ticket sound?"
> [
> Holbrook -
> FREE SPEECH
> JEAN YORK
>
> How does this sound? Sarah Palin for president and Glenn Beck for vice
> president?
Sounds like Four More Years of Obama to me. Caribou Barbie and The
Golden Fleece would be a dream ticket for the Democrats.
Cheney, Dick
wrote:
> http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983&WT....
==========
It sound just like America deserve!
DAFFY DUMB SHIT and Glennyboy ... has a kind of shit-for-brains ring
to it ...
Jim Alder
ya02408000R26...@news.datemas.de:
> In article <Xns9CED81110680C...@216.196.97.142>, Jim Alder
> <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Daniel <sabot...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4bcf799e-ffa7-471f-8a7d-
>>baeac0...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Dec 22, 3:26�am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
wrote:
>>>> http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983&WT....
>>>> � "How does a Palin/Beck ticket sound?"
>>>
>>>
>>> Like doom for nobama. Of course, since nobama is one and done, it doesn't
>>> matter who runs against him.
>>
>> Oh, it matters. Because that person will almost certainly be president
for
>> four years.
>
> You'll nominate some Torquemada because McCain was "too lib'rul" and O will
> win in a Reaganesque landslide.
The Pope could run and beat Obama.
Daniel
> denni...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis M) wrote in news:dennism3-
> ya02408000R2612091824560...@news.datemas.de:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <Xns9CED81110680Cjimaldersssnet...@216.196.97.142>, Jim Alder
> > <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4bcf799e-ffa7-471f-8a7d-
> >>baeac0246...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> On Dec 22, 3:26 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> wrote:
> >>>>http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983&WT....
> >>>> "How does a Palin/Beck ticket sound?"
>
> >>> Like doom for nobama. Of course, since nobama is one and done, it doesn't
> >>> matter who runs against him.
>
> >> Oh, it matters. Because that person will almost certainly be president
> for
> >> four years.
>
> > You'll nominate some Torquemada because McCain was "too lib'rul" and O will
> > win in a Reaganesque landslide.
>
> The Pope could run and beat Obama.
Cosmo Kramer could beat nobama.
Jim Alder
ba9ddf...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 26, 9:19�pm, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> denni...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis M) wrote in news:dennism3-
>> ya02408000R2612091824560...@news.datemas.de:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <Xns9CED81110680Cjimaldersssnet...@216.196.97.142>, Jim Alder
>> > <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4bcf799e-ffa7-471f-8a7d-
>> >>baeac0246...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >>> On Dec 22, 3:26�am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983
&WT....
>> >>>> � "How does a Palin/Beck ticket sound?"
>>
>> >>> Like doom for nobama. Of course, since nobama is one and done, it
doesn't
>> >>> matter who runs against him.
>>
>> >> � Oh, it matters. Because that person will almost certainly be president
>> >> for � four years.
>>
>> > You'll nominate some Torquemada because McCain was "too lib'rul" and O
will
>> > win in a Reaganesque landslide.
>>
>> � �The Pope could run and beat Obama.
>
>
> Cosmo Kramer could beat nobama.
The Banjo player from Deliverance could beat Obama, but he's a Democrat,
too. <g>
Cliff
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Glenn+Beck+teabagger
>Actual teabaggers, like you.
>
> Glad we cleared that up.
Find those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Daniel
> Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:7369fab1-0b7f-483f-acfb-
> ba9ddfd71...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:19 pm, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> >> denni...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis M) wrote in news:dennism3-
> >> ya02408000R2612091824560...@news.datemas.de:
>
> >> > In article <Xns9CED81110680Cjimaldersssnet...@216.196.97.142>, Jim Alder
> >> > <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4bcf799e-ffa7-471f-8a7d-
> >> >>baeac0246...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >>> On Dec 22, 3:26 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=85228846&aid=6272983
> &WT....
> >> >>>> "How does a Palin/Beck ticket sound?"
>
> >> >>> Like doom for nobama. Of course, since nobama is one and done, it
> doesn't
> >> >>> matter who runs against him.
>
> >> >> Oh, it matters. Because that person will almost certainly be president
> >> >> for four years.
>
> >> > You'll nominate some Torquemada because McCain was "too lib'rul" and O
> will
> >> > win in a Reaganesque landslide.
>
> >> The Pope could run and beat Obama.
>
> > Cosmo Kramer could beat nobama.
>
> The Banjo player from Deliverance could beat Obama, but he's a Democrat,
> too. <g>
>
Jerry Fallwell could beat nobama, but isn't he dead? Doesn't really
matter, he could still beat him.
ArmyOfDorkness
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEDE0DF625D3...@216.196.97.142...
You're brother/cousin is a democrat?
Topaz
No Way Out But Through the Jews
A Review of Paul Gottfried's The Conservative Movement
by Alex Linder
Executive summary: The Jews have taken over the American right, and
they have the money and media access to shut out any contenders.
Meaning: Unless you build a movement that explicitly forbids Jewish
participation and focuses on Jews as the political enemy, you are
destined to be coopted or crushed. Or at least rendered impotent, like
the Old Right, and left broke and fuming on the sidelines. Caveat: The
Internet isn't accounted for in Gottfried's calculus.
...the review
In his 1993 book The Conservative Movement, Jew Paul Gottfried
provides an excellent short history of post-WWII conservatism, and one
that provides a clear, if implicit, message for today's White
nationalist. That message is the title of this review: No way out but
through the Jews. If you plan to pursue the political goal of a
civilized White America, these Jews will be at your throat every step
of the way. So you might as well not kid yourself about that but set
your phaser on "kill" from the start.
Gottfried never comes right out and says it, but the upshot of his
history is that the right has been taken over by Jews. Centered around
the Podhoretz and Kristol families, this Jewish movement pushes an
anti-American ideology. Where George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
advocated no entangling alliances abroad and local rule at home, the
neocons promote a plus-sized managerial state at home, and global
democratic crusades abroad. Since their infiltration in the late
sixties, early seventies, says Gottfried, these Jewish "conservatives"
have garnered the lion's share of money and media access,
marginalizing the traditional right. And although he nowhere mentions
talk radio or the Internet, Gottfried sees virtually no options at the
disposal of those who would usurp the usurpers.
Who are the neoconservatives? Essentially, they are a small group of
East Coast Jewish intellectuals of regular private morality. They are
former reds or red-diaper babies who departed from the New Left when
it started advocating odd sex and communism and other policies they
felt were potentially anti-Semitic. As they emerged from this sixties
morass, they gravitated to the right, where they found allies in the
anti-communist cause; friends with foundation money that could be used
to construct a bulwark against their crazier New Left brethren. Over
the course of the seventies, the Jewish neoconservatives took over one
foundation after another, supplanting the Christian traditionalist
bias of American conservatism with their detailed policy studies and
position papers. These bore proof of their sociological and
statistical cast of mind, different from the Kirkian
religious-literary bias of traditionalists.
By the time of Reagan, they had achieved dominance. Any conservative
hoping to make a career of it, whether in politics or writing or
commentating, had to hew to their specific vision of the America they
wished to conserve if he wished to preserve his own office, air-time
or sheet space. Any vestigial strains of racial feeling or regional
sympathy were anathema to these racist philo-Semitic anti-racists who
are unstinting in their anathematizing of anyone who diverges from
their pluralist, democratic dogmas. Any American, that is. The
dogmatic democratic pluralism disappears when it comes to Israel,
where Semitic chauvinism is, quite rightly they think, the law. What
White racialists want for America is no different from what Jewish
neoconservatives want for Israel. But they will try to shout down
anyone who makes the equation, just ask Joe Sobran. Only Jews have a
right to an ethnostate; democratic pluralism is good enough for the
rest of us. This hypocritical double-standard springs directly from
the gut Jewish feeling that an America made up of many conflicting
groups, riven by cultural standards, divided by ethnicity, history and
behavior, is the America in which the Jew is safest, and can move
about most freely. A strong, sure White nation scares the Jew. So
whether it's America or Europe, he tries to undercut it with
anthropological lies about the unreality of race, falsified histories
("diversity has always been our greatest strength") support for open
immigration, suppression of free speech and the destruction of free
association-all in the name of "civil rights." Neoconservatives are
Jews, no need to look further than that. Jews, whether left or right,
ask only one question: Is it good for the Jews? They hide behind
universalist rhetoric, but their concern is for themselves. And you
can be absolutely sure of this: Their interests are not our
interests..
David Horowitz would be a prime example of an expert deployer of a
plausible, counterfeit theory and history of America to suck in
potential White racialists and get them four-square behind a nutty,
extremist, ahistorical view of politics that can only lead America
into South Africa's pit of horrors. The triumph of individual rights
in Black lands means the triumph of the jungle. It is extremist,
rationalist and counter-historical to elevate a political process over
the character of the people. How can ignorant, 75-IQ blacks produce
civilization protecting the individual rights these neoconservatives
claim to love? Can one-man, one-vote really produce that miracle? Of
course not, and these Jews know it. And they know that the Founders
knew it. So they lie. The truth, as they know and cover up, is that
the Founders understood that only civilized, self-controlled White men
were capable of civilization, and that to expect dissolute, lazy,
TV-drenched slobs mixed with mulattoes and Negroes and Mexicans to
vote in ordered liberty was to expect the impossible. But David
Horowitz, living in Los Angeles, can look out the window and tell you
it's possible. Never underestimate the power of Jewish duplicity in
furthering Jewish self-interest. That's a second corollary to
Gottfried's study.
We asked above whether or not these neoconservative Jews were really
conservative. Perhaps that question isn't important. One point
Gottfried does develop, writing in 1993, is just how little difference
there is in today's political discourse between left and right. As I
write, George W. Bush is battling Al Gore, so the point is hardly
stale. Effectively, the left and right may differ in degree, but
everybody supports a capitalist welfare state and global democracy.
Everybody is "inclusive." Everybody bows before the great God of
Diversity. Are the Jews conservative? In the deeper sense, no. They
are still radicals, intent on spreading their lies about human
fungibility, from which they aone are exempt as the "Chosen" people.
Left or right, they are eager to destroy our White civilization to
further their group interests.
On the second most important political issue of the day-leaving the
borders open to the third world-the Jews speak with one voice: no
patrols. Note this well: Never in American history has a majority of
Whites favored colored immigration. The Jews alone favored it, for
reasons outlined above. Now whose policy is followed today? -- that of
the Jewish minority, which doesn't think like you and I do. You
thought the majority was supposed to prevail in a democracy? Wrong.
Political control in a democracy, as Aristotle observed, is vested in
those who control television. This is part of what certain Americans
are getting at with the 'ZOG' formulation that all the
pseudo-sophisticated college-educated folk laugh at (as TV has taught
them to). The Jews almost to a man push open-borders immigration, and
they denounce anyone who differs as an evil racist/nativist/xenophobe.
All the Jewish lies dovetail intellectually, and all of them advance
Jewish interests. I recommend, I urge, I wish I could force everyone
who hasn't to read Kevin MacDonald's paper on the Jewish influence in
the hundred years of debate preceding the nation-killing 1965
immigration act that opened the floodgates to the third world. The
Jewish hatred of the White world is the story that doesn't make the
news, even as it remakes your neighborhood. I doubt the plush-paunched
Republicans watching TV politics as spectator sport will ever pick up
on it. You will run a long way before you meet an average American
with the slightest historical awareness-nor the interest in developing
one. But the arguments are lying there, exactly as I've presented
them, and perhaps in a crisis people will take a hard look at what
brought us to our current position. For all the disinformation out
there, it's still not too hard to detect the patterns once you have
the facts. . .
So we've seen that Jews claiming themselves "conservatives" but not
all that different from their leftist brethren have come in and
dominated the right. Where does this leave whatever is left of the
non-Jewish right? I would break this set into two subsets: those who
are openly racist (which Gottfried avoids) and those who make veiled
or open Semitically Incorrect arguments while attempting to maintain
their "respectability." The former have no political power, while the
latter are desperate to hang on to their columns and speaking
engagements.
Although there are a handful of Jews pushing standard White-racist
arguments, and who would receive even less notice than they do get if
they weren't Jewish, these same never take into account that Jews can
never simply be another ethnic group assimilated into a purified White
America. The nature and qualities and history of their group shows
just that-they are a group. And since they are a group that recognizes
itself as a group and fights against other groups on that basis-they
must be opposed as a group. This is not so much guilt by association
as guilt by genetics and behavior and history. As a group they have
strategized to destroy the civilized White America they felt
threatened by, and anything we do to them in return is more than
deserved. Treating them as individuals, just like we are, has failed.
The correct path is to treat them as the radical alien outsiders and
eliminate their influence. We need to take their flag off the
courthouse, so to speak.
Getting back to the lesson at the top of the page, Jews have so
strategized their evolution (see Kevin MacDonald's work) as to be
considerably more intelligent than their hosts, with an average IQ of
115, a standard-deviation above the White mean. This intelligence and
their proven historical character combine to ensure Jews will always
be the yeast, the irritants, the makers-uncomfortable, the
revolutionaries. Wherever they exist in White society they will be a
force for disruption. The fact that some can exist as peaceful ethnics
among the White majority does not negate this Big Truth (for if there
can be Big Lies, there can also be Big Truths). Because
class-arguments can be abused, and because injustice will be meted out
to individual non-Whites when we rebuild civilization, the Jews
enforcing their dogma of individualism will always have points to make
that resonate with our myopic right-wing individualists. But just as
surely as these Jews averted their eyes from the general horrors
ensuing in South Africa after their racial-and-political equality
dogmas were enacted, the pro-White right must be louder than ever in
showing that their ethnic Jewish self-interest can only end in the
extinction of the White race. Really. Those are the stakes.
The media neoconservatives can't afford to admit the evidence of the
failure of their dogma in South Africa, rape and murder capital of the
world; rather they redouble their insistence on individualism to evade
the Big Truth that colored demographics and political democracy doom
White minorities everywhere. And taking a global perspective-as we are
all supposed to do, nowadays-the White race is a small minority, and
growing smaller every day. Our White kinsmen are already being
butchered in their homes and driven off their farms in South Africa
and Zimbabwe. Literally tens of millions of Whites have become victims
of violent Black assault in America since the Jew-eased passage of
"Civil Rights" legislation. The Jews well know these facts, and that
is why they avoid reporting them. They hated South Africa when it was
ruled by civilized Whites. They don't give a damn what happens to
Whites once their beloved Negroes are carrying the whip. Foolish,
foolish White man-will you not wake up while there is time?
What we are discussing is a very simple: the Jews are a class fighting
to dominate other classes, just as Benjamin Stein saw in his report on
the TV Weltanschauung, The View from Sunset Boulevard. Jew Stein, like
Jew Michael Levin (Feminism and Freedom), will never name his people
as that class, pointing to "writers and producers," "feminists," and
"neoconservatives." (It is really truly amazing the way that Jews are
able to camouflage their interests, always presenting their specific
goal as a general good, and that their terms are tacitly accepted in
their opponents' rhetoric. It's like we all are under contract to
agree that the Jews aren't a group and don't have any specific
interests and certainly don't work to advance those interests and even
if they do, they aren't in conflict with ours. But notice that on the
flip side, the opposite conditions obtain: Jews always attack their
opponents by class (right-wing Christian extremists, racist haters,
Arabs), lingering lovingly on the specific interests of their
undifferentiated opponents; always forestalling counter-arguments as
"anti-Semitism" driven by the only motive Jews ever allow their
opponents-all together now-"hate." The Jews can only get away with
this clever I-criticize-you-and-you
criticize-that-bag-of-flour-over-there setup because they exert
extraordinary control over television and newspapers. And their backup
line of defense, of course, is to denounce anyone who notices the
strategies behind their tactics as an anti-Semitic conspiracymonger.
This is a second aspect of what the 'ZOG'-minded are pointing to.
Stein is writing about the class of TV writers and producers;
Gottfried is writing about neoconservatives; Levin is writing about
feminists. All of them mean Jews, none of them can afford to say it.
When you become a Jew, it's almost as though you have to sign a sheet
saying you will either avoid mentioning negative Jewish
characteristics or-pace Marx and Freud-reinterpret specific, offensive
Jewish behaviors or patterns as generically human: i.e., repression,
or characteristic of an exploited class. (An excellent book, The
Ordeal of Civility, by John Murray Cuddihy, covers this topic in
depth.) The one thing none of these rightist Jews wants is a civilized
White society where Jews are nonexistent. Or ghettoized. Or looked
down on socially. Or in which you are free to speak and write and talk
about Jews as specific people who act, look and think in generalizable
ways. Jews may be physically ugly duplicitous socialist troublemakers,
but they don't want you saying that. They will propagandize through
the schools and TV until you are practically unable to notice it
because the whole context in which you might make such an observation
has been destroyed. They will make hard to find the few books that
dare discuss it. (Just try finding Cuddihy's book.) History is nothing
but a propaganda tool to them. In living memory they were kept out of
the better hotels and clubs and colleges, and since treatment of the
Jews, to Jews, is the true measure of civilization, any time they were
legally or socially treated as other than the God-sent gift they
present themselves (that is, all history up until about fifty years
ago) must be falsified into Dark Ages (Jews out of power) preceding
today's Enlightened Age (Jews running the show). Let alone the
ghettoes of old Europe, these people are capable of portraying the
fifties in America as some sort of racist hellhole, saved only through
heroic Blacks led by saintly Jews in the name of civil rights or
federal tyranny, if you prefer your descriptions accurate. What is
clear to every Jew seems to be unclear to most White Americans,
especially those on the right who ought to know better:
this is a war of classes, a war for power and dominance between a
small but smart and well-positioned ethnic group and the vast majority
of civilized White people. The Jews instinctively recognize this
battle, feel it in their blood, and are fighting hard for their side.
Most on our side aren't even aware a war is going on.
Gottfried points to two symbolic episodes that show the transfer of
power from the traditional right to the neocons: 1) Rockford's firing
of John Neuhaus, and his subsequent denunciation of traditionalist
racism and anti-Semitism among the Old Right; and, 2) the neocons'
successful defeat of M.E. Bradford, a traditionalist historian, as
head of the National Endowment of Humanity. What was the traditional
right to do? Basically, it retreated, licked its wounds, and looked
about in search of allies and money and media outlets. What has
happened, and this is clearer now than when Gottfried completed the
book, is that the American political system under Clinton has gotten
so corrupt that even average people began to notice. This alone has
strengthened the traditional right's never-too-strong confidence, and
strengthened its new ally, the libertarians, too. And both sides have
benefited hugely from the Internet, which at once strengthens small
groups and somewhat threatens established media institutions. By 2000,
there were enough ganglia of pro-Whites on the Internet to get
mainstream Jewish groups scribbling "hate crimes" model statutes,
anti-gun legislation, and politically correct browser censorware at
top speed.
It might have been expected that the loss of power and funding would
have resulted in the radicalization of the traditional right, at least
to the point of open talk about taking the American right back from
the Jews. There was very little of such talk, none of it open-at least
among those with one eye on "respectability," that ever leftward
moving boundary observed by fools.
What we still see on the right in the year 2000 are leading non-Jewish
right-wing Whites couching what they know to be racial arguments in
regional or race-neutral terms. Sam Francis speaks of Middle American
Revolutionaries. He means Whites, but he's afraid to come out and say
it. Of course, he gets called racist just the same. And he got fired
from the neocon Washington Times just the same. But Jews, to him, are
just people with a different religion, and he can still find a way to
fit minorities into that Middle American revolution.
Then there are the various Southern separatist groups. All are
carefully non-racial. All get accused of being racist. All fail to
draw the correct conclusion. It is amusing in a sick and increasingly
irritating way. Is there nobody left who can think clearly and isn't
afraid to voice his conclusions publicly? No, the Southern Semitically
Correct separatists present as sorry a face as they always do. Always
trying for that elusive respectability, always failing to achieve it,
and always losing the few-and merely symbolic-battles they do engage
in. For people who brag incessantly "on" their heroic Confederate
ancestors, they show little courage and less intelligence.
I'll say it again, a little louder now, so Johnny Reb can hear me:
THERE IS NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEWS. IT DOES YOU NO GOOD TO BE OR
PRETEND TO BE NON-RACIST. YOU ARE THREATENED AS A GROUP, BY A GROUP,
AND YOU'D BETTER GET THOSE GROUPS STRAIGHT IN YOUR HEAD TO HAVE ANY
HOPE OF PRESERVING THE LAND AND PEOPLE YOU LOVE.
A little more on the Southern-rights groups. The left always froths
over them, as though people too scared and powerless to say what they
mean openly are going to achieve anything. This frothing is more a
measure of media boredom and the fact that the left is so dominant it
has forgotten what real opposition feels like that it goes overboard.
The left so buys its own frothing demagoguery it can't even realize
these people have ceded the essential point before they even start
arguing. Pity the poor Southern separatist. He can't even keep the
flag in the air or the Blacks from pooping on the statue of his
great-grandaddy. Even with all that Confederate heroism running in his
blood, he's still selling his problem as Northerners, not Blacks. As
though America hasn't been homogenized by TV into one big mall or
airport lobby. As though the guy in Arkansas is worried about the
White man just over the Missouri line, more than the Black next door.
How pitiful and obvious he is, our man of gray, thinking the media
will buy that he's really not racist. He can't see that it doesn't
matter in the slightest if he isn't, and if he is, he's contemptible
for not arguing openly. Ditch the gray and go for black and white,
Southern Man.
How many times does the right have to learn that the media really is
controlled by Jews, by intimidation where not by ownership; that Jews
really are leftist; and that anyone preaching anything remotely
resembling White pride gets treated like a human showing emotion in
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (that is, squawked at and pointed out
to the cops by the aliens who are taking over the planet) - so that he
might as well oppose the Jew's anti-White hatred openly. You can't win
where the other guy defines the terms, sets the labels, interprets the
law. You must oppose him openly, directly, explicitly and give him no
quarter. Why are you always on the defensive? Could it be the same
reason you always lose? Here we come to a deep-lying problem with
conservatism. First of all, nobody's ever satisfactorily defined it. A
branch of that problem is that there is no philosophical basis for
incorporating political attack. A new conservatism must be envisioned
that incorporates not merely the preservation of custom and tradition,
but one that can accommodate formless spiritual or psychic drives that
are even more important than patterned behaviors: questing,
exploration, simple competitiveness. Even blood-lust. What could be
more conservative than blood-lust? But where do you find it among the
Republicans; over at the Jew-intimidated National Review? Among the
foundation-based low-tax remonstrators?
The funny thing is that once you say, Yes, I am a racist. Just like
George Washington. And you are a White-hating Jew-the poison is drawn.
They have set the terms of this political game we all play, and only
by refusing to play do we stand a chance of winning. It is utmost
foolishness, as anybody who has published conservative articles
anywhere in the world will tell you, to try to escape the racist tag.
You can't, and in any case it ain't a meaningful word, people-it's
just a way to smear and discredit you. Fight the smearers and
discrediters directly, refuse to play on their terms. Love and
fairness no more conquer hate than they conquer bullets. Prefixing
your conservative arguments with "I'm not a racist, but..." and
expecting to achieve your political goals is like one of those African
rebel guerillas smearing himself with magical pig grease thinking it
will stop bullets.
Apart from your opinion of the Nazis, consider their tactics. Did they
win-democratically-by adopting the tactics of the respectable American
right, or did they gain converts by their physical courage and their
willingness to confront the Jew-led communists? How much worse can the
Old Right do than it is doing right now? Not much. The mainstream
right-as I write, G.W. Bush and the Republican convention are in full
swing, every other speaker addressing the hall is a colored-has
decided to ape the liberals. In the words of the song, Freedom's just
another word for nothing left to lose. Well, what on earth do the Sam
Francises and Thomas Flemings and the Pat Buchanans have left to lose?
A column in an obscure magazine? A speech to a few dozen like-mindeds?
Is it possible they will turn to effective tactics out of sheer
boredom? Sam Francis (you'll serve as representative here), how could
you possibly do worse than you are doing now by openly criticizing
Jews instead of making pusillanimous attacks on East Coast elitists
and New World Order bureaucrats? How could you possibly fare any worse
by defending the Black-and-White truths of the Founders in
black-and-white terms?
Then you've got the libertarians, trying to get government off our
backs without any recourse to racial explanations or group interests
in explaining human behavior. Trying to understand the world one
person at a time. Some of these libertarians are products of Silicon
Valley, and to the extent they philosophize, they are Randian
individualists. They believe in free trade and free movement of
peoples, and make no distinctions between them. Libertarians seem to
instinctively turn away from any historical recognition of the
circumstances under which the freedoms they demand were actually
realized. Even their few (and in many ways impressive) intellectuals
who are interested in history tend to fall in line with the
politically safe Jewish lie about the non-racial aspect of our
founding, building their future utopias in that tired old,
misunderstood, misrepresented "all men are created equal."
Politically, libertarians are laughable, beyond their useful ability
to supply policy papers. Imagine a whole bunch of computer geeks and
economics professors marching on Washington under the fear-inspiring
banner of "Me!" Now there's an Army even our heroic neo-Confederates
could take! Libertarians maybe never will realize that, again I yell,
BLOOD AND RACE ARE WHAT MOVE PEOPLE, NOT THE RIGHT TO SMOKE DOOBIES
AND BUGGER YOUR BOYFRIEND. NOT EVEN ECONOMICS. Am I really the only
idiot to notice that when Whites ruled America, White people were
free? And that when Jews and Blacks rule America, they're slaves? But
most "right-wing" libertarians would rather support a minimum wage
hike than acknowledge this simple historical fact. They are too
rationalist in temperament, too much like our liberal dictators. Too
in love with their idea of
people-as-individuals-in-the-low-tax-multicultural-utopia-of-tomorrow
to pay attention to street-level political and historical reality.
Many of us want individual liberty, but it only obtains under certain
circumstances. There sure doesn't seem to be much of it around in
these days of "civil rights" for everybody except the people who
created the idea of 'em in the first place. If there's anything that
gives the lie to what passes for "conservatism" these days, it's right
here: Genuine civil rights-association, property, speech,
self-defense-were much better protected in the days before the prating
Jews and their colored parasite minions rose to the fore. Yet
recognition of the race-based nature of practical, effective, genuine
freedom will get you kicked out of the Libertarian party faster than
you can say Don't Do Drugs!
Libertarians take one aspect of looking at the world and inflate it
into the entire cosmos. This is their built-in bias. When you combine
it with their standard right-wing fear of crossing the Semitical
Correctness line, you have a second hurdle between them and racialism.
The conservative Christians share these political flaws. Their concern
is not for the race or the group, but for the salvation of the
individual soul. Of course, since in years past the Good Book has been
used to support virtually every position under the sun including
communism, there is a bit more hope for their conversion on the racial
issue, should the powers that be change. TV Christians have proven
able adopters of the Semitically Correct line. Israel is good and
racialism is bad. That's the message they're getting from New York,
and that's the message Pat Robertson is putting out to rural North
Carolina. The libertarians have their hated parties, but these are
always anonymous "bureaucrats" or "statists," or "socialists"-never
anyone you can actually get your hands on. Same with the Christian
conservatives. They are the equivalent of the libertarians in that the
former are excellent at certain types of economic reasoning (Why We
Should Privatize Trash Collection) while the Christians retain solid
moral and character-development advice. They are both good on the
small-picture stuff. But neither group can take a realistic look at
the general; they are both concerned about saving Heaven or Liberty
one soul at a time. They both simply refuse to make necessary
generalizations.
Christians, again like Libertarians, invariably throw their
opprobrium on carefully generic targets: Atheists, secular humanists
(gays are the one exception, and even here they say "Hate the sinner,
not the sin," as though that doesn't conflict with their doctrine of
free will). A Jew or a black or a Mexican is a vivid image,
immediately recognizable. The abstractions countered by the Christians
and the libertarians are creatures that nobody would recognize on a
public street. They are fighting abstactly against abstractions,
instead of coherently for something concrete.
Never do the Christians go after the Jews who are killing their
doctrines; never do they speak the name of their real enemy despite
the spittingly obscene provocations to which he has subjected them.
This is why, with tens of millions in numerical advantage, the
Christians aren't even masters of the civilization they created. In
fact, much of the leadership class of the Christians has become so
enthralled with Jewish ideas that now the church will bend any which
way the Jews require, whether it's removing the Commandments from the
classroom the way the Jew judge and Jew-created and -run ACLU tell
them to, or rewriting history to avoid the fact that Jews condemned
their own Savior to die (as in the revised [read: Semitically Correct]
Passion Plays)! They may think they are only turning the other cheek,
but self-abasing worms is what these new Christians truly are. This
used to be a religion whose adherents killed others in glorious
crusade for their Truth, and died at the stake before renouncing their
Faith. Today, the biggest name in Christendom hobnobs with nutty
Buddhists and faxes apologies to Jerusalem. For all its residual focus
on humility and self-discipline (welcome antacids to the Jewish public
school lies about self-esteem, which is really self-absorption and
self-worship; in a word, selfishness), the Christian church in America
is today furthering the racial evils that Jewish ideologues,
especially those misappropriating the name conservative, have
subjected us to. Pat Robertson has no problem with those influxing
Mexican chicken-pluckers heaping his collection plates, and has
publicly advocated miscegenation as the long-term solution to our
racial ills. If he preached miscegenation as a sin, as his hardier
forebears did, he would be burned at the stake. Pardon me, I mean, he
wouldn't be on TV. The fact that any evangelicals are on TV at all is
conditioned on their support for Israel and their multiracialism. This
is what makes their leaders despicable-not the hypocrisy and
White-trashiness the left and right would have us sneer at them for.
Recently Bush's first national campaign ad aired. It shows him at a
school surrounded by little black and brown kids, all well on their
way to becoming the computer programmers and doctors and lawyers and
Republicans of tomorrow. It seems the GOP has made up its mind which
way it's going. It's everyvato's party; down with the homies, too.
Make any show that persuades in order to capture power. The old
Clinton strategy. After all, reality is that waves of wets wash over
the border every night, and at some point they and their kids will
vote. The bulk White population is fading, and the core demographic
supporting conservative principles simply won't be there to swing a
presidential election in another ten years.
Even Jew-genuflecting National Review has noticed this Californication
of America, as has been termed in a different context. But sucking up
to the powers that be, angling for a spot, doing what he's told, is
something the middle-manager mind that makes up the Republican ranks
well understands. Ya got to roll with the punches, ya know?
White man, you have to decide. If you choose not to decide, you still
have made a choice, to make a phrase. You can pull a Christian
Scientist, and pretend that that brown spot on our national chest will
just go away if we think positive thoughts long enough, refuse to
acknowledge it. But it won't. Those coloreds swamping the border,
those grasping welfare niggers, those lying Jewish press manipulators
won't disappear of their own accord. Twenty years from now, George
Bush-Brown will be president, and all the things you fear today-
your kids blood-libeled at school; yourself discriminated against on
the job; your taxes higher than ever; your wife subject to insults,
rape or assault; your big cities gang-dominated; your small cities
dominated by nigger "music" and clothing pollution; your guns
outlawed; your political opinions criminalized; your TV louder and
more intrusive and hateful-will be worse. As Paul Gottfried shows,
but doesn't tell, the same Jews that have made the present possible
are working hard to make this future inevitable. But there is still a
window of opportunity. But only if you recognize that we-you and I
and the others reading this-are part of the White race, share
interests, and must band together. And that, politically, culturally
and socially, to achieve a civilized future, there is
NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEWS!
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/index5.htm
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Jim Alder
da937e...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
I don't know.
> Doesn't really
> matter, he could still beat him.
--
Jim Alder
news:o4iej5t3ccfh7f02q...@4ax.com:
Trying to show me that leftwinger perverts get the giggles when they say
"teabagger"? I already know they do. When are you going to show me that
grassroots movement for the Palin/Beck ticket?
>>Actual teabaggers, like you.
>>
>> Glad we cleared that up.
>
> Find those "WMDs" yet?
Not looking, dumb shit? I know where they went. Why do you keep asking? Are
you demented?
Aratzio
Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>> Find those "WMDs" yet?
>
> Not looking, dumb shit? I know where they went. Why do you keep asking? Are
>you demented?
Have you told anyone in the military or DoD that you have insider
knowledge pertaining to existing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
Jim Alder
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:rgdfj5ltea8418cc3...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:27:17 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>>> Find those "WMDs" yet?
>>>
>>> Not looking, dumb shit? I know where they went. Why do you keep asking?
>Are
>>> you demented?
>>
>> Have you told anyone in the military or DoD that you have insider
>> knowledge pertaining to existing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
>
> They already know.
So Bush failed there too, but made sure they informed you while they
were failing so that there would be a *reliable* record of their
failure.
So what is your plan to make sure the world knows this information?
Will you be going on the Sunday talk shows to discuss with Dick Cheney
the failures in the Bush administration and what you would do to
correct the failures of the Bush Administration?
Jim Alder
news:q0lfj5lbqifqhnu1e...@4ax.com:
Nope. But then, I don't consider it a failure of the Bush administration
that Hussein managed to smuggle the WMDs out of the country before or slightly
after the invasion.
Aratzio
So if they know where they are, they were the most obvious basis for
the invasion, they were not captured and you don't consider that
failure.
Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
then why didn't they go get them?
What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
ignored by the government?
Jim Alder
news:m1dgj5hfphk1laoeb...@4ax.com:
No, they weren't. They were just the reason you goofballs made all the
noise about because they weren't found, while you diminished the other
reasons.
> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
Nope.
> Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
> then why didn't they go get them?
Because it would involve invading another country.
> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
> ignored by the government?
If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of the
Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong, I would consider that a
failure.
Aratzio
Yes, that whole speech by Colin Powell at the UN justifying the
invasion claiming the WMD were there and an imminent threat was a
concoction of the left.
>
>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>
> Nope.
Of course not, but then your history fails to include actual facts so
you can just imagine what ever you want.
>
>> Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
>> then why didn't they go get them?
>
> Because it would involve invading another country.
Since the troops were right there and contrary to your bizarre beliefs
the WMD were the "imminent threat" if they were known to be in another
country then they would have followed the trail.
>
>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
>> ignored by the government?
>
> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of the
>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong, I would consider that a
>failure.
I must admit, you have provided a hilarious and insane wingnut
conversation. Congratulations, you have ompletely rewritten history
and apologized for the most inept administration since Grant.
So, cupcake, where do *you* know the missing WMD have been hidden and
what is your proof that:
a) They exist where you claim.
b) The Bush administration willfully failed to do anything about the
WMD that they claimed were an "imminent threat".
c) You are have a pass to be using the computer.
Cliff
For the real winger movements check under their outhouses.
>>>Actual teabaggers, like you.
>>>
>>> Glad we cleared that up.
>>
>> Find those "WMDs" yet?
>
> Not looking, dumb shit? I know where they went.
Where?
You are lying yet again, winger. Typical.
Did Rumsfeld, bush & SureShot take them back?
>Why do you keep asking? Are
>you demented?
Why do you lie & so admire liars?
Cliff
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:rgdfj5ltea8418cc3...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:27:17 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>>> Find those "WMDs" yet?
>>>
>>> Not looking, dumb shit? I know where they went. Why do you keep asking?
>Are
>>> you demented?
>>
>> Have you told anyone in the military or DoD that you have insider
>> knowledge pertaining to existing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
>
> They already know.
"They" being the ones that said there were none, right?
--
Cliff
Cliff
How many lies in a row was that?
Cliff
EVERY "reason" claimed was a blatent lie.
"WMDs" is a proxy for all of them.
>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>
> Nope.
More winger lies.
>> Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
>> then why didn't they go get them?
>
> Because it would involve invading another country.
Like Iraq?
Or Canada?
Canada may be able to defend though.
>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
>> ignored by the government?
>
> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of the
>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong,
What did he do?
>I would consider that a
>failure.
Look at the results.
You WERE warned.
Over & over again.
--
Cliff
ArmyOfDorkness
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEEE977A1A3A...@216.196.97.142...
That's why everyone knows you as Alderloon.
Aratzio
"ArmyOfDorkness" <DorkAs...@hotmail.com> got double secret
probation for writing:
His world has a certain stress related flavor that most of the lunatic
fringe lacks. He seems to know that he is writing complete nonsense
yet cannot stop himself because it is all he can muster against those
that he hates with such passion.
"The Great One"
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:eeohj5psjr0lble4k...@4ax.com...
> Roz
Roz's world has a certain stress related flavor that most of the lunitic
Gay caballers lack. He/she/it seems to know that "it" is writing
complete nonsense - yet cannot stop "itself" because it is all "it" can
muster against those "it" FEARS will include him/her in the Novins
Law Suit.
Roz, you have ALL my pity for being so fearfull !!
--
Your Pal,
HJ
p.s. Help (process server) is on the way....never fear !!
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
No, but the Left agreed. What's your point?
>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Of course not, but then your history fails to include actual facts so
> you can just imagine what ever you want.
What an ironic thing for you to say. Was it intentional?
>>> Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
>>> then why didn't they go get them?
>>
>> Because it would involve invading another country.
>
> Since the troops were right there and contrary to your bizarre beliefs
> the WMD were the "imminent threat" if they were known to be in another
> country then they would have followed the trail.
Perhaps they had not read "The Art of War" by Aratzio? Perhaps they didn't
choose to invade yet another country for the same reasons they didn't pursue
bin Laden into Pakistan.
>>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
>>> ignored by the government?
>>
>> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of the
>>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong, I would consider that
a
>>failure.
>
> I must admit, you have provided a hilarious and insane wingnut
> conversation.
Then I suppose I must reciprocate and thank you for yet another monotonous
and myopic trip into the Leftwing's idea of 'debate'. Thanks for nothing,
literally.
> Congratulations, you have completely rewritten history
> and apologized for the most inept administration since Grant.
No, I've answered your questions. As always, it was a waste of time,
because Liberals only ask questions so they can ridicule the answers because
they think they already know everything, no matter how often they are shown to
be the clueless fucks that they are.
And now it's time for a condescending and mildly creepy homo-erotic
reference.
> So, cupcake,
Yep, right on cue.
> where do *you* know the missing WMD have been hidden and
> what is your proof that:
>
> a) They exist where you claim.
> b) The Bush administration willfully failed to do anything about the
> WMD that they claimed were an "imminent threat".
> c) You are have a pass to be using the computer.
I "am have" a pass?
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
Every one, eh? But you don't know what the other ones are, Cliff. So how
do you know they were a lie?
> "WMDs" is a proxy for all of them.
Shorthand to accomodate your tiny mind, Cliff? That's convenient for you.
>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> More winger lies.
More Cliffie bullshit.
>>> Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
>>> then why didn't they go get them?
>>
>> Because it would involve invading another country.
>
> Like Iraq?
Wow, you're even stupider than I thought, Cliff, and that's a mighty low
bar for even YOU to limbo under.
> Or Canada?
> Canada may be able to defend though.
>
>>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
>>> ignored by the government?
>>
>> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of the
>>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong,
>
> What did he do?
>
>>I would consider that a failure.
>
> Look at the results.
> You WERE warned.
> Over & over again.
Everything you do is 'over and over again', Cliff. It's still bullshit.
Jim Alder
news:ut2hj55817hc83omr...@4ax.com:
Back you go.
<plonk>
No-bammer
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:09:27 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>news:ub01j59fuukd9402b...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>How does this sound? Sarah Palin for president and Glenn Beck for vice
>>>president?
Well it sounds a hell of a lot better than what we have.
Jeff M
Jim Alder
news:eeohj5psjr0lble4k...@4ax.com:
I don't hate you pathetic, hate-filled little morons. I do pity you, if
that makes you feel any better. It must be a soul-sucking workout to spend so
much time on the subject of politics when your only basis for any opinion or
decision is hatred. And no, that's not "IKYABWAI?" I've been saying it for
years.
Jim Alder
news:ZbmdnQ0X7Lw7YqXW...@giganews.com:
> It sounds like eight years of Obama/Biden.
Hate to burst your bubble, pal, but I don't see that happening. I wonder if
Obama will even win the primary.
Jeff M
> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in
> news:ZbmdnQ0X7Lw7YqXW...@giganews.com:
>
>> It sounds like eight years of Obama/Biden.
>
> Hate to burst your bubble, pal, but I don't see that happening.
Clean your glasses, then.
> I wonder if
> Obama will even win the primary.
Count on it. Incumbency is very powerful.
Aratzio
Ah, so the lies of the Bush Administration are the fault of the left
for being hoodwinked.
>
>>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Of course not, but then your history fails to include actual facts so
>> you can just imagine what ever you want.
>
> What an ironic thing for you to say. Was it intentional?
Well, I've yet to see even one iota of actual evidence from you. Just
bizarre claims that you have information upon which the government
failed to act.
Here, post evidence where you know the WMD that did not exist are now
hiding:
>
>>>> Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
>>>> then why didn't they go get them?
>>>
>>> Because it would involve invading another country.
>>
>> Since the troops were right there and contrary to your bizarre beliefs
>> the WMD were the "imminent threat" if they were known to be in another
>> country then they would have followed the trail.
>
> Perhaps they had not read "The Art of War" by Aratzio? Perhaps they didn't
>choose to invade yet another country for the same reasons they didn't pursue
>bin Laden into Pakistan.
Go ahead, explain how an imminent threat to the security of the United
States is no longer a threat because the physical location of the
material that present the imminent threat has changed. Unless you
imagine the imminent threat is no longer an imminent threat?
>
>>>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
>>>> ignored by the government?
>>>
>>> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of the
>>>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong, I would consider that
>a
>>>failure.
>>
>> I must admit, you have provided a hilarious and insane wingnut
>> conversation.
>
> Then I suppose I must reciprocate and thank you for yet another monotonous
>and myopic trip into the Leftwing's idea of 'debate'. Thanks for nothing,
>literally.
You consider myopic the ability to make you post hilarious delusions?
>
>> Congratulations, you have completely rewritten history
>> and apologized for the most inept administration since Grant.
>
> No, I've answered your questions. As always, it was a waste of time,
>because Liberals only ask questions so they can ridicule the answers because
>they think they already know everything, no matter how often they are shown to
>be the clueless fucks that they are.
No, you did not answer them. You entertain a number of people spewing
bumbling apologies for ineptt people all while blaming everyone but
the actual cuprits.
>
> And now it's time for a condescending and mildly creepy homo-erotic
>reference.
I would not expect anything more of you.
>
>> So, cupcake,
>
> Yep, right on cue.
So, you imagine being called a small frosted cake to be homo-erotic?
Please feel free to expand upon your fear of cake:
>
>> where do *you* know the missing WMD have been hidden and
>> what is your proof that:
>>
>> a) They exist where you claim.
>> b) The Bush administration willfully failed to do anything about the
>> WMD that they claimed were an "imminent threat".
>> c) You are have a pass to be using the computer.
>
> I "am have" a pass?
Ah, I changed my syntax and forgot to alter the typing and you became
overly confused. However, it did give you a great opportunity to hide
from the questions.
Aratzio
"I know you are but what am I"
>I do pity you, if that makes you feel any better. It must be a soul-sucking workout to spend so
>much time on the subject of politics when your only basis for any opinion or decision is hatred.
Denial:
>And no, that's not "IKYABWAI?" I've been saying it for years.
Yes, that is and whining that what you just did is not self-evidently
exactly that does not alter the facts.
Oh, that's right, you don't like facts.
So, where exactly are those Iraqi WMD whose location you know, with
some sort of evidence it is not just another delusion:
ArmyOfDorkness
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEF96D55FC29...@216.196.97.142...
> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in
> news:ZbmdnQ0X7Lw7YqXW...@giganews.com:
>
>> It sounds like eight years of Obama/Biden.
>
> Hate to burst your bubble, pal, but I don't see that happening. I wonder
> if
> Obama will even win the primary.
Classic Alderloon. Absolutely no idea what is going on.
Morton Davis
Reality fuckwads like you can't come close to with your left wing dumbfuck
insanity.
Aratzio
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
Really? In what reality does Mr. Alder exist? The one where the people
telling lies are not culpable only those who believe the lies are
culpable. Or the one where he knows of secret stashes of WMD that ere
hidden by a guy living in a root cellar.
I agree, I cannot come close to his reality. However, they do have
treatments for his and your reality.
Does your reality include a President Palin?
Jim Alder
Gibberish.
>>>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Of course not, but then your history fails to include actual facts so
>>> you can just imagine what ever you want.
>>
>> What an ironic thing for you to say. Was it intentional?
>
> Well, I've yet to see even one iota of actual evidence from you. Just
> bizarre claims that you have information upon which the government
> failed to act.
Of course they acted. Hussein is dead.
> Here, post evidence where you know the WMD that did not exist are now
> hiding:
Nope. Didn't say I would prove it, I said I knew it.
>>>>> Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
then
>>>>> why didn't they go get them?
>>>>
>>>> Because it would involve invading another country.
>>>
>>> Since the troops were right there and contrary to your bizarre beliefs
>>> the WMD were the "imminent threat" if they were known to be in another
>>> country then they would have followed the trail.
>>
>> Perhaps they had not read "The Art of War" by Aratzio? Perhaps they
didn't
>>choose to invade yet another country for the same reasons they didn't pursue
>>bin Laden into Pakistan.
>
> Go ahead, explain how an imminent threat to the security of the United
> States is no longer a threat because the physical location of the
> material that present the imminent threat has changed. Unless you
> imagine the imminent threat is no longer an imminent threat?
WMDs in the hands of Hussein and his crazy sons was the threat. Do I need
to explain why that is no longer the case?
>>>>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
>>>>> ignored by the government?
>>>>
>>>> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of
the
>>>>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong, I would consider
that
>>>>a failure.
>>>
>>> I must admit, you have provided a hilarious and insane wingnut
conversation.
>>
>> Then I suppose I must reciprocate and thank you for yet another
monotonous
>>and myopic trip into the Leftwing's idea of 'debate'. Thanks for nothing,
>>literally.
>
> You consider myopic the ability to make you post hilarious delusions?
I consider you myopic and monotonous, as I said.
>>> Congratulations, you have completely rewritten history and apologized for
the
>>> most inept administration since Grant.
>>
>> No, I've answered your questions. As always, it was a waste of time,
>> because Liberals only ask questions so they can ridicule the answers
>> because
>>they think they already know everything, no matter how often they are shown
to
>>be the clueless fucks that they are.
>
> No, you did not answer them.
Yes. I did.
> You entertain a number of people spewing
> bumbling apologies for ineptt people all while blaming everyone but
> the actual cuprits.
Blaming the Hussein family of psychos for the war with Iraq?
>> And now it's time for a condescending and mildly creepy homo-erotic
>> reference.
>
> I would not expect anything more of you.
>
>>
>>> So, cupcake,
>>
>> Yep, right on cue.
>
> So, you imagine being called a small frosted cake to be homo-erotic?
Depends. Are you a woman? If not, then yes.
> Please feel free to expand upon your fear of cake:
Where did I mention fear? Or was that your intent?
>>> where do *you* know the missing WMD have been hidden and
>>> what is your proof that:
>>>
>>> a) They exist where you claim.
>>> b) The Bush administration willfully failed to do anything about the
>>> WMD that they claimed were an "imminent threat".
>>> c) You are have a pass to be using the computer.
>>
>> I "am have" a pass?
>
> Ah, I changed my syntax and forgot to alter the typing and you became
> overly confused. However, it did give you a great opportunity to hide
> from the questions.
Hide from them? You asked the same question half a dozen times.
Jim Alder
Aratzio
That was your defense for the Bush Administration lying. "The people
that were lied to agreed".
Unless you would actually care to have a go at the actual point, you
know where you claimed that the WMD were peripheral and I pointed out
that the main thrust for invading Iraq was made by Colin Powell at the
UN and was substantially about the "imminent threat" the non-existant
WMD presented. You know the ones that Hans Blix said did not exist and
the US said that the person actually on the ground, doing inspections,
was wrong.
Your response was to blame someone else for agreeing with the lies.
>
>>>>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not, but then your history fails to include actual facts so
>>>> you can just imagine what ever you want.
>>>
>>> What an ironic thing for you to say. Was it intentional?
>>
>> Well, I've yet to see even one iota of actual evidence from you. Just
>> bizarre claims that you have information upon which the government
>> failed to act.
>
> Of course they acted. Hussein is dead.
So, in other words, you are making it up and have no evidence to
support your claim that you know where there are Iraqi WMD hidden.
I am shocked to learn you cannot support your most basic claim with
any sort of substantiated evidence.
>
>> Here, post evidence where you know the WMD that did not exist are now
>> hiding:
>
> Nope. Didn't say I would prove it, I said I knew it.
The voices tell you or do you have super-secret back channels into the
*bowels* of government that fart you messages?
>
>>>>>> Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
>then
>>>>>> why didn't they go get them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it would involve invading another country.
>>>>
>>>> Since the troops were right there and contrary to your bizarre beliefs
>>>> the WMD were the "imminent threat" if they were known to be in another
>>>> country then they would have followed the trail.
>>>
>>> Perhaps they had not read "The Art of War" by Aratzio? Perhaps they
>didn't
>>>choose to invade yet another country for the same reasons they didn't pursue
>>>bin Laden into Pakistan.
>>
>> Go ahead, explain how an imminent threat to the security of the United
>> States is no longer a threat because the physical location of the
>> material that present the imminent threat has changed. Unless you
>> imagine the imminent threat is no longer an imminent threat?
>
> WMDs in the hands of Hussein and his crazy sons was the threat. Do I need
>to explain why that is no longer the case?
Well, you need to explain how you know the people controlling your
hidden WMD are less of threat. Who are these people and what are their
plans for the WMD? You have that information since you have obviously
concluded they are not a threat, give your reasoning and support your
conclusion.
>
>>>>>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
>>>>>> ignored by the government?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of
>the
>>>>>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong, I would consider
>that
>>>>>a failure.
>>>>
>>>> I must admit, you have provided a hilarious and insane wingnut
>conversation.
>>>
>>> Then I suppose I must reciprocate and thank you for yet another
>monotonous
>>>and myopic trip into the Leftwing's idea of 'debate'. Thanks for nothing,
>>>literally.
>>
>> You consider myopic the ability to make you post hilarious delusions?
>
> I consider you myopic and monotonous, as I said.
So that was a yes. You do know that the word myopic has nothing to do
with the ability to make you post hilarious delusions?
Here is the other issue, I also have an astigmatism. How do your
imaginings assay that fact?
>
>>>> Congratulations, you have completely rewritten history and apologized for
>the
>>>> most inept administration since Grant.
>>>
>>> No, I've answered your questions. As always, it was a waste of time,
>>> because Liberals only ask questions so they can ridicule the answers
>>> because
>>>they think they already know everything, no matter how often they are shown
>to
>>>be the clueless fucks that they are.
>>
>> No, you did not answer them.
>
> Yes. I did.
That is just a lie.
>
>> You entertain a number of people spewing
>> bumbling apologies for ineptt people all while blaming everyone but
>> the actual cuprits.
>
> Blaming the Hussein family of psychos for the war with Iraq?
Yes, that would be a good place to start. Provide your evidence that
the Iraqi's, individually, politically or as a whole presented an
imminent threat to the security of the United States:
Explain why why an Iragi, that did not even have a nuclear program, is
a greater threat than North Korea or Iran:
Explain why the US governent, in the person of Donald Rumsfeld, was
supporting the Iraqi dictator you describe as a "family of psychos"
during the 80s:
>
>>> And now it's time for a condescending and mildly creepy homo-erotic
>>> reference.
>>
>> I would not expect anything more of you.
>>
>>>
>>>> So, cupcake,
>>>
>>> Yep, right on cue.
>>
>> So, you imagine being called a small frosted cake to be homo-erotic?
>
> Depends. Are you a woman? If not, then yes.
So, if a man thinks you to be a small frosted cake you find it erotic.
However, if a woman were to think of you as a small frosted cake then
it is not erotic.
You have some highly developed *issues*...
>
>> Please feel free to expand upon your fear of cake:
>
> Where did I mention fear? Or was that your intent?
Absolutely, that is the end game of making you post your hilarious
delusions, that you will develop a full blown case of jophaboia.
>
>>>> where do *you* know the missing WMD have been hidden and
>>>> what is your proof that:
>>>>
>>>> a) They exist where you claim.
>>>> b) The Bush administration willfully failed to do anything about the
>>>> WMD that they claimed were an "imminent threat".
>>>> c) You are have a pass to be using the computer.
>>>
>>> I "am have" a pass?
>>
>> Ah, I changed my syntax and forgot to alter the typing and you became
>> overly confused. However, it did give you a great opportunity to hide
>> from the questions.
>
> Hide from them? You asked the same question half a dozen times.
No, you have avoided them at every turn. You make bizarre and
unsubstaniated claims that run counter to mountains of evidence all
because you, it appears, you have an unreasonable fear of cake.
So, where is the evidence that the WMD in Iraq existed after 1997:
Transition Zone
> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote innews:qPOdnem8moAMkaTW...@giganews.com:
>
> > Jim Alder wrote:
> >> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in
> >>news:ZbmdnQ0X7Lw7YqXW...@giganews.com:
>
> >>> It sounds like eight years of Obama/Biden.
>
> >> Hate to burst your bubble, pal, but I don't see that happening.
>
> > Clean your glasses, then.
>
> >> I wonder if Obama will even win the primary.
>
> > Count on it. Incumbency is very powerful.
>
> We'll see.
By now, who'd run in place of Obama. There are no real dem opponents.
> My girlfriend asked me "Have you been having
> sex behind my back?"
>
> I said "Who in the hell did you think it was?"
Grow up. You and your friend's jokes look like you'll have 5 more
years 'till you reach age 17.
Jim Alder
Why do I so often wind up trying to teach remedial English to leftwingers
who have so mangled the language trying to ignore what was actually said?
> Unless you would actually care to have a go at the actual point, you
> know where you claimed that the WMD were peripheral and I pointed out
> that the main thrust for invading Iraq was made by Colin Powell at the
> UN and was substantially about the "imminent threat" the non-existant
> WMD presented.
The case for invading Iraq was made by Bush in the state of the union
address. You will find a list of reasons there and WMDs were not the only one
or even the leading one.
> You know the ones that Hans Blix said did not exist and
> the US said that the person actually on the ground, doing inspections,
> was wrong.
The inspectors who were lied to by military posing as scientists and kept
them from inspecting thoroughly?
> Your response was to blame someone else for agreeing with the lies.
No, it was not, but then you don't speak English very well. I said they
were NOT lies and that the Left agreed that Iraq was a threat.
>>>>>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not, but then your history fails to include actual facts so
>>>>> you can just imagine what ever you want.
>>>>
>>>> What an ironic thing for you to say. Was it intentional?
>>>
>>> Well, I've yet to see even one iota of actual evidence from you. Just
>>> bizarre claims that you have information upon which the government
>>> failed to act.
>>
>> Of course they acted. Hussein is dead.
>
> So, in other words, you are making it up and have no evidence to
> support your claim that you know where there are Iraqi WMD hidden.
Those are certainly "other words" all right. But I'm not making anything
up. Iraq's WMDs were smuggled out of the country and into Iran at or around
the time of the invasion by the US. I do not know where they are now.
> I am shocked to learn you cannot support your most basic claim with
> any sort of substantiated evidence.
Oh well.
No, I really don't. Nor do I plan to. I never claimed to know who had them
now nor what their plans were. Nor any of the other fucking gibberish that
follows. Cliff asked if I found the WMDs yet. I answered him. I did not offer
to write a book.
--
Jim Alder
938dd2...@w11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 29, 11:15�am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote
innews:qPOdnem8moAMkaTW...@giganews.com:
>>
>> > Jim Alder wrote:
>> >> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in
>> >> news:ZbmdnQ0X7Lw7YqXW...@giganews.com:
>>
>> >>> It sounds like eight years of Obama/Biden.
>>
>> >> � �Hate to burst your bubble, pal, but I don't see that happening.
>>
>> > Clean your glasses, then.
>>
>> >> I wonder if Obama will even win the primary.
>>
>> > Count on it. �Incumbency is very powerful.
>>
>> � �We'll see.
>
> By now, who'd run in place of Obama. There are no real dem opponents.
Beats me. I don't keep close track of the Democrat ticket or aspiring
lefties. I know Obama is sinking in the view of both parties. That doesn't
mean someone is going to start running against him three years before the
election.
>> My girlfriend asked me "Have you been having
>> sex behind my back?"
>>
>> I said "Who in the hell did you think it was?"
>
> Grow up. You and your friend's jokes look like you'll have 5 more
> years 'till you reach age 17.
My friend? Who might that be? Sorry you're humor-challenged. It must be a
hell of a way to live.
--
Aratzio
Yes, just hold those hand tight against your ears and scream la-la-la
as loud as you can.
The case was made AT THE UN by Colin Powell and declared that the WMD
he claimer were present in Iraq were an "imminent threat".
The WMD were THE reason to invade Iraq. No amount of ignoring the
facts on your part can ever alter that.
Now, where are the WMD you claim are being hidden and are now under
the control of a person that is not an "immenent threat".
You can keep running from the question cupcake, but the longer you
run, the more insane you look.
>
>> You know the ones that Hans Blix said did not exist and
>> the US said that the person actually on the ground, doing inspections,
>> was wrong.
>
> The inspectors who were lied to by military posing as scientists and kept
>them from inspecting thoroughly?
That is a lie. Hans Blix has stated over and over that no one told him
where to inspect.
You have proof otherwise you may present it now or just continue to
believe your lies.
>
>> Your response was to blame someone else for agreeing with the lies.
>
> No, it was not, but then you don't speak English very well. I said they
>were NOT lies and that the Left agreed that Iraq was a threat.
But they have been proven to be lies. Cherry picked intelligence
repackaged to provide the excuse. The "Office of Special Plans" run by
an undersecratary named William Luti was created specifically for that
purpose.
You really are devoid of information or is it just you ignore anything
that does not fit what you want to believe?
>
>>>>>>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not, but then your history fails to include actual facts so
>>>>>> you can just imagine what ever you want.
>>>>>
>>>>> What an ironic thing for you to say. Was it intentional?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I've yet to see even one iota of actual evidence from you. Just
>>>> bizarre claims that you have information upon which the government
>>>> failed to act.
>>>
>>> Of course they acted. Hussein is dead.
>>
>> So, in other words, you are making it up and have no evidence to
>> support your claim that you know where there are Iraqi WMD hidden.
>
> Those are certainly "other words" all right. But I'm not making anything
>up. Iraq's WMDs were smuggled out of the country and into Iran at or around
>the time of the invasion by the US. I do not know where they are now.
Yet you claimed you did know where they were and now you claim that
you do not, please try to keep your lies straight.
So who was it that moved those WMD East and what is your evidence to
support your claim? Do you have even one piece of evidence to support
your ludicrous claim?
>
>> I am shocked to learn you cannot support your most basic claim with
>> any sort of substantiated evidence.
>
> Oh well.
You do realize your delusions are not evidence?
>
>>>> Here, post evidence where you know the WMD that did not exist are now
>>>> hiding:
>>>
>>> Nope. Didn't say I would prove it, I said I knew it.
>>
>> The voices tell you or do you have super-secret back channels into the
>> *bowels* of government that fart you messages?
Well, what about those voices you hear?
Well, you make all those claims of great knowledge about the events
leading up to and during the Iraq invasion yet you cannot even find
the smallest piece of evidence to support your claims. Since I am not
cliff and you could not support your claims with evidence there either
that pretty much makes you a lying scum bag or a delusional wingnut.
I'd actually present you are both.
>
>> Who are these people and what are their
>> plans for the WMD? You have that information since you have obviously
>> concluded they are not a threat, give your reasoning and support your
>> conclusion.
Well, no claims that the "left agreed" or equally bizzarre claim?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
>>>>>>>> ignored by the government?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong, I would consider
>>>>>>>that a failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I must admit, you have provided a hilarious and insane wingnut
>>>>>> conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I suppose I must reciprocate and thank you for yet another
>>>>> monotonous
>>>>>and myopic trip into the Leftwing's idea of 'debate'. Thanks for nothing,
>>>>>literally.
>>>>
>>>> You consider myopic the ability to make you post hilarious delusions?
>>>
>>> I consider you myopic and monotonous, as I said.
>>
>> So that was a yes. You do know that the word myopic has nothing to do
>> with the ability to make you post hilarious delusions?
>>
>> Here is the other issue, I also have an astigmatism. How do your
>> imaginings assay that fact?
>>
Well? Does astigmatism have any effect upon reasoning in your world?
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Congratulations, you have completely rewritten history and apologized
>for
>>>>>> the most inept administration since Grant.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I've answered your questions. As always, it was a waste of time,
>>>>> because Liberals only ask questions so they can ridicule the answers
>>>>> because they think they already know everything, no matter how often
>>>>> they are shown to be the clueless fucks that they are.
>>>>
>>>> No, you did not answer them.
>>>
>>> Yes. I did.
>>
>> That is just a lie.
I see you do not disagree with my assertion that you lied.
>>
>>>
>>>> You entertain a number of people spewing
>>>> bumbling apologies for ineptt people all while blaming everyone but
>>>> the actual cuprits.
>>>
>>> Blaming the Hussein family of psychos for the war with Iraq?
>>
>> Yes, that would be a good place to start. Provide your evidence that
>> the Iraqi's, individually, politically or as a whole presented an
>> imminent threat to the security of the United States:
Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>
>> Explain why why an Iragi, that did not even have a nuclear program, is
>> a greater threat than North Korea or Iran:
Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>
>> Explain why the US governent, in the person of Donald Rumsfeld, was
>> supporting the Iraqi dictator you describe as a "family of psychos"
>> during the 80s:
>>
Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>>
>>>>> And now it's time for a condescending and mildly creepy homo-erotic
>>>>> reference.
>>>>
>>>> I would not expect anything more of you.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, cupcake,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, right on cue.
>>>>
>>>> So, you imagine being called a small frosted cake to be homo-erotic?
>>>
>>> Depends. Are you a woman? If not, then yes.
>>
>> So, if a man thinks you to be a small frosted cake you find it erotic.
>> However, if a woman were to think of you as a small frosted cake then
>> it is not erotic.
>>
>> You have some highly developed *issues*...
Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>
>>>
>>>> Please feel free to expand upon your fear of cake:
>>>
>>> Where did I mention fear? Or was that your intent?
>>
>> Absolutely, that is the end game of making you post your hilarious
>> delusions, that you will develop a full blown case of jophaboia.
Full blown jophobia.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> where do *you* know the missing WMD have been hidden and
>>>>>> what is your proof that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) They exist where you claim.
>>>>>> b) The Bush administration willfully failed to do anything about the
>>>>>> WMD that they claimed were an "imminent threat".
>>>>>> c) You are have a pass to be using the computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I "am have" a pass?
>>>>
>>>> Ah, I changed my syntax and forgot to alter the typing and you became
>>>> overly confused. However, it did give you a great opportunity to hide
>>>> from the questions.
>>>
>>> Hide from them? You asked the same question half a dozen times.
>>
>> No, you have avoided them at every turn. You make bizarre and
>> unsubstaniated claims that run counter to mountains of evidence all
>> because you, it appears, you have an unreasonable fear of cake.
>>
>> So, where is the evidence that the WMD in Iraq existed after 1997:
Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
Amazing how he runs once he has to actually face his own words and
support them.
Gunner Asch
So is poll ratings lower than Jimmy Carters....
ArmyOfDorkness
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:ep1lj5d3fr7a0mekc...@4ax.com...
He's not even polling as low as George Bush
Gunner Asch
At Bush's worst. And he is on the waaaaaaay down.
<G>
Interesting 1st year in office, no? Not even finished a full year as
President, and less than 50% of the people like or respect him.
The next 3 yrs will be even more interesting
<VBG>
Gunner
Aratzio
Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:52:47 -0600, Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote:
Listen to Gummy, he is always a great indicator of what the American
people want. He predicted that with the addition of Sarah Palin that
Barack Obama no longer had a chance.
He also predicted (in ~2003) now that we had won the war in Iraq that
in two weeks we would be in Tehran.
So all that needs to be done is take a Gummy prediction, turn it on
its head and you will have the correct view.
Jim Alder
You don't know either, huh?
>>> Unless you would actually care to have a go at the actual point, you
>>> know where you claimed that the WMD were peripheral and I pointed out
>>> that the main thrust for invading Iraq was made by Colin Powell at the
>>> UN and was substantially about the "imminent threat" the non-existant
>>> WMD presented.
>>
>> The case for invading Iraq was made by Bush in the state of the union
>>address. You will find a list of reasons there and WMDs were not the only
one
>>or even the leading one.
>
> Yes, just hold those hand tight against your ears and scream la-la-la
> as loud as you can.
Is that YOUR secret? Is that your answer to the question you skipped over
above?
> The case was made AT THE UN by Colin Powell and declared that the WMD
> he claimer were present in Iraq were an "imminent threat".
>
> The WMD were THE reason to invade Iraq. No amount of ignoring the
> facts on your part can ever alter that.
They were A reason.
> Now, where are the WMD you claim are being hidden and are now under
> the control of a person that is not an "immenent threat".
>
> You can keep running from the question cupcake, but the longer you
> run, the more insane you look.
>
>>
>>> You know the ones that Hans Blix said did not exist and
>>> the US said that the person actually on the ground, doing inspections, was
>>> wrong.
>>
>> The inspectors who were lied to by military posing as scientists and
kept
>> them from inspecting thoroughly?
>
> That is a lie. Hans Blix has stated over and over that no one told him
> where to inspect.
>
> You have proof otherwise you may present it now or just continue to
> believe your lies.
>
>>
>>> Your response was to blame someone else for agreeing with the lies.
>>
>> No, it was not, but then you don't speak English very well. I said they
>> were NOT lies and that the Left agreed that Iraq was a threat.
>
> But they have been proven to be lies. Cherry picked intelligence
> repackaged to provide the excuse. The "Office of Special Plans" run by
> an undersecratary named William Luti was created specifically for that
> purpose.
>
> You really are devoid of information or is it just you ignore anything
> that does not fit what you want to believe?
More irony, eh?
>>>>>>>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course not, but then your history fails to include actual facts so
>>>>>>> you can just imagine what ever you want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What an ironic thing for you to say. Was it intentional?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I've yet to see even one iota of actual evidence from you. Just
>>>>> bizarre claims that you have information upon which the government
failed
>>>>> to act.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they acted. Hussein is dead.
>>>
>>> So, in other words, you are making it up and have no evidence to support
>>> your claim that you know where there are Iraqi WMD hidden.
>>
>> Those are certainly "other words" all right. But I'm not making anything
>>up. Iraq's WMDs were smuggled out of the country and into Iran at or around
>>the time of the invasion by the US. I do not know where they are now.
>
> Yet you claimed you did know where they were and now you claim that
> you do not, please try to keep your lies straight.
That was in 2001. I 'claimed' I don't know where they are now. I just said
both of those things in the previous paragraph. You repeated them back with a
"Yet" in front of them and called them lies.
You're a goddamned idiot.
I made ONE statement about ONE bit of knowledge.
> Since I am not
> cliff and you could not support your claims with evidence there either
> that pretty much makes you a lying scum bag or a delusional wingnut.
No, this all pretty much makes you a goddamned idiot.
> I'd actually present you are both.
I actually don't give a flying fuck at the moon.
myopic - adj.
1. short-sighted, narrow, unimaginative, narrow-minded, small-minded,
unadventurous, near-sighted The government still has a myopic attitude to
spending.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com
>>> Here is the other issue, I also have an astigmatism. How do your
>>> imaginings assay that fact?
>
> Well? Does astigmatism have any effect upon reasoning in your world?
>>>>
>>>>>>> Congratulations, you have completely rewritten history and apologized
>>>>>>> for the most inept administration since Grant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I've answered your questions. As always, it was a waste of
time,
>>>>>> because Liberals only ask questions so they can ridicule the
answers
>>>>>> because they think they already know everything, no matter how
often
>>>>>> they are shown to be the clueless fucks that they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you did not answer them.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I did.
>>>
>>> That is just a lie.
>
> I see you do not disagree with my assertion that you lied.
Of course I disagreed with it. Did you expect me to keep on disagreeing
with it every time you say it. Are you a child?
--
ArmyOfDorkness
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:unclj55jco7gevelj...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:13:54 -0600, "ArmyOfDorkness"
> <DorkAs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>news:ep1lj5d3fr7a0mekc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:52:47 -0600, Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jim Alder wrote:
>>>>> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in
>>>>> news:ZbmdnQ0X7Lw7YqXW...@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like eight years of Obama/Biden.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hate to burst your bubble, pal, but I don't see that happening.
>>>>
>>>>Clean your glasses, then.
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if
>>>>> Obama will even win the primary.
>>>>
>>>>Count on it. Incumbency is very powerful.
>>>
>>>
>>> So is poll ratings lower than Jimmy Carters....
>>>
>>>
>>
>>He's not even polling as low as George Bush
>
>
> At Bush's worst. And he is on the waaaaaaay down.
He's not even close to Bush terrible numbers. Bush still polls lower that
Obama.
Aratzio
Because you didn't you idiot.
I stated that Colin Powel declared the WMD an "imminent threat" ina a
speech at the UN, you responded with a complete non-sequitur about the
"left agreed". Which had fuck all to do with your idiotic statement
that the WMD were not the reason for the Iraq war.
Ergo: Since the discussion was reasoning for the iraq war, the facts
were that the Bush admin lied, you claim "the left agreed" as an
excuse and therefore you blamed the people that were lied to for the
lies of the administration.
Now are you too stupid to follow the conversation and post without
your idiotic non-sequiturs?
>
>>>> Unless you would actually care to have a go at the actual point, you
>>>> know where you claimed that the WMD were peripheral and I pointed out
>>>> that the main thrust for invading Iraq was made by Colin Powell at the
>>>> UN and was substantially about the "imminent threat" the non-existant
>>>> WMD presented.
>>>
>>> The case for invading Iraq was made by Bush in the state of the union
>>>address. You will find a list of reasons there and WMDs were not the only
>one
>>>or even the leading one.
>>
>> Yes, just hold those hand tight against your ears and scream la-la-la
>> as loud as you can.
>
> Is that YOUR secret? Is that your answer to the question you skipped over
>above?
What a surprise, Adler with another of his vaunted:
"I know you are but what am I?"
Here is the hint, idiot: Cherry picking ONLY the evidence that
supports your argument is the same a lying or covering your ears and
hiding from the truth. You dismiss anything contrary such as the
speech by Colin Powell before the world at the UN because it
contradicts what your want to believe.
>
>> The case was made AT THE UN by Colin Powell and declared that the WMD
>> he claimer were present in Iraq were an "imminent threat".
>>
>> The WMD were THE reason to invade Iraq. No amount of ignoring the
>> facts on your part can ever alter that.
>
> They were A reason.
They were the Prime Reason, they were the "imminent threat". Without
the "imminent threat" there is no justification based upon the Bush
Doctrine. You know, pre-emptive war?
Here is Bush before the same UN:
"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when
inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when
they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one
conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."
Hans Blix in March 2003:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass
destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there
are mobile production units for biological weapons � [But] no evidence
of proscribed activities have so far been found."
Weasel all you want, but the Bush Doctrine REQUIRES an imminent
threat. Just like Bush described.
Unless you have another imminent threat that the Bush Admin claimed?
Ergo they lied about the WMD, 10s of thousands of innocent civilians
are dead and well over 4,000 US service people are dead for their
lies. And you find this an acceptable result.
Why do you hate our men and women in uniform?
>
>> Now, where are the WMD you claim are being hidden and are now under
>> the control of a person that is not an "immenent threat".
>>
>> You can keep running from the question cupcake, but the longer you
>> run, the more insane you look.
>>
>>>
>>>> You know the ones that Hans Blix said did not exist and
>>>> the US said that the person actually on the ground, doing inspections, was
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> The inspectors who were lied to by military posing as scientists and
>kept
>>> them from inspecting thoroughly?
>>
>> That is a lie. Hans Blix has stated over and over that no one told him
>> where to inspect.
>>
>> You have proof otherwise you may present it now or just continue to
>> believe your lies.
>>
So you accept you lied. Why bother lying if you are just going to get
caught?
>>>
>>>> Your response was to blame someone else for agreeing with the lies.
>>>
>>> No, it was not, but then you don't speak English very well. I said they
>>> were NOT lies and that the Left agreed that Iraq was a threat.
>>
>> But they have been proven to be lies. Cherry picked intelligence
>> repackaged to provide the excuse. The "Office of Special Plans" run by
>> an undersecratary named William Luti was created specifically for that
>> purpose.
>>
>> You really are devoid of information or is it just you ignore anything
>> that does not fit what you want to believe?
>
> More irony, eh?
Lack of refutation of the actual facts and a non-sequitur, what a
surprise.
You don't do well when faced with actual provable facts, do you?
You do know about the Office of Special Plans and William Luti, right?
You were not just covering for your ignorance and inability to
construct a reasoned response?
>
>>>>>>>>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not, but then your history fails to include actual facts so
>>>>>>>> you can just imagine what ever you want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What an ironic thing for you to say. Was it intentional?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I've yet to see even one iota of actual evidence from you. Just
>>>>>> bizarre claims that you have information upon which the government
>failed
>>>>>> to act.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they acted. Hussein is dead.
>>>>
>>>> So, in other words, you are making it up and have no evidence to support
>>>> your claim that you know where there are Iraqi WMD hidden.
>>>
>>> Those are certainly "other words" all right. But I'm not making anything
>>>up. Iraq's WMDs were smuggled out of the country and into Iran at or around
>>>the time of the invasion by the US. I do not know where they are now.
>>
>> Yet you claimed you did know where they were and now you claim that
>> you do not, please try to keep your lies straight.
>
> That was in 2001. I 'claimed' I don't know where they are now. I just said
>both of those things in the previous paragraph. You repeated them back with a
>"Yet" in front of them and called them lies.
You are now claiming that Saddam Hussein transferred his WMD arsenalto
Iran in 2001? 2 years before the invasion, to a country that despised
him and against whom he had used WMD in the 1980s. Really, you believe
that?
What is even more hilarious, the real wingnut conspiracy with the
Iraqi WMD is that they were moved to Syria and or Lebanon. No one
would be so stupid to believe that a man you call insane would trust
the Iranians with something that could kill him.
So here is where your claim gets to be supported by evidence. Go
ahead, link to a reputable media, think tank or analysis that supports
your claim:
>
> You're a goddamned idiot.
You are getting angry because I won't let you lie and get away with
it. Not my fault you do not lie very well or you are so gullible you
will believe any lie that fits what you want to believe. Your complete
and utter inability to reconcile the world as it is with the world as
you want it to be is not my fault.
>
>> So who was it that moved those WMD East and what is your evidence to
>> support your claim? Do you have even one piece of evidence to support
>> your ludicrous claim?
>>
>>>
>>>> I am shocked to learn you cannot support your most basic claim with
>>>> any sort of substantiated evidence.
>>>
>>> Oh well.
>>
>> You do realize your delusions are not evidence?
Well, do you?
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Here, post evidence where you know the WMD that did not exist are now
>>>>>> hiding:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Didn't say I would prove it, I said I knew it.
>>>>
>>>> The voices tell you or do you have super-secret back channels into the
>>>> *bowels* of government that fart you messages?
>>
>> Well, what about those voices you hear?
They won't tell you, will they?
7
And you cannot support even that one. Nothing but more claims about
how you know things but can't prove anything. Why does every other
conspiracy loon say the WMD are in Syria and only you claim they are
in Iran? I can't find even one link that osits that bizarre theory.
Only you and you claim it is a fact.
Now, when the whole world is wrong and you believe you are right, that
is indicative that you are a complete loon.
>
>> Since I am not
>> cliff and you could not support your claims with evidence there either
>> that pretty much makes you a lying scum bag or a delusional wingnut.
>
> No, this all pretty much makes you a goddamned idiot.
The definition of the word idiot does not include "unwilling to
believe delusional rantings of a wingnut".
>
>> I'd actually present you are both.
>
> I actually don't give a flying fuck at the moon.
Well, I doubt anyone else has the delusion that they can flying fuck
the moon.
>
>>>> Who are these people and what are their
>>>> plans for the WMD? You have that information since you have obviously
>>>> concluded they are not a threat, give your reasoning and support your
>>>> conclusion.
>>
>> Well, no claims that the "left agreed" or equally bizzarre claim?
>>
How about the 2001 move to Iran? Care to flesh that puppy out?
So you agree then, you failed to use the word properly and that it
doesn't have anything to do with my ability to make you post hilarious
delusions. You know, like the one where the WMD are actually in Iran.
I was quite amused by that one. I honestly had never heard any
conspiracy loon give voice to that one.
>
>>>> Here is the other issue, I also have an astigmatism. How do your
>>>> imaginings assay that fact?
>>
>> Well? Does astigmatism have any effect upon reasoning in your world?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Congratulations, you have completely rewritten history and apologized
>>>>>>>> for the most inept administration since Grant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I've answered your questions. As always, it was a waste of
>time,
>>>>>>> because Liberals only ask questions so they can ridicule the
>answers
>>>>>>> because they think they already know everything, no matter how
>often
>>>>>>> they are shown to be the clueless fucks that they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you did not answer them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I did.
>>>>
>>>> That is just a lie.
>>
>> I see you do not disagree with my assertion that you lied.
>
> Of course I disagreed with it. Did you expect me to keep on disagreeing
>with it every time you say it. Are you a child?
So, you agree, you lied, again.
>
>>>>>> You entertain a number of people spewing
>>>>>> bumbling apologies for ineptt people all while blaming everyone but
>>>>>> the actual cuprits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Blaming the Hussein family of psychos for the war with Iraq?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that would be a good place to start. Provide your evidence that
>>>> the Iraqi's, individually, politically or as a whole presented an
>>>> imminent threat to the security of the United States:
>>
>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
Still awaiting your threat assesment. One that makes the case for
application of the Bush Doctrine.
You do have a case, right? You aren't just going to pretend that your
pat answers based upon no facts at all will suffice?
>>
>>>>
>>>> Explain why why an Iragi, that did not even have a nuclear program, is
>>>> a greater threat than North Korea or Iran:
>>
>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
Well, were they a greater threat than Iran or North Korea? Maybe you
only have that one *fact* in your head and that precludes you from
carrying on a discussion with regard to the actual security threats
faced by the USA?
>>>>
>>>> Explain why the US governent, in the person of Donald Rumsfeld, was
>>>> supporting the Iraqi dictator you describe as a "family of psychos"
>>>> during the 80s:
>>>>
>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
You did know that the USA under Reagan supported the Saddam regime?
You know the one you claim to be a "family of psychos".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now it's time for a condescending and mildly creepy homo-erotic
>>>>>>> reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would not expect anything more of you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, cupcake,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, right on cue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you imagine being called a small frosted cake to be homo-erotic?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends. Are you a woman? If not, then yes.
>>>>
>>>> So, if a man thinks you to be a small frosted cake you find it erotic.
>>>> However, if a woman were to think of you as a small frosted cake then
>>>> it is not erotic.
>>>>
>>>> You have some highly developed *issues*...
>>
>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
I apologize for belittling your bizarre sexual fetish.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please feel free to expand upon your fear of cake:
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did I mention fear? Or was that your intent?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely, that is the end game of making you post your hilarious
>>>> delusions, that you will develop a full blown case of jophaboia.
>>
>> Full blown jophobia.
CAKE!
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> where do *you* know the missing WMD have been hidden and
>>>>>>>> what is your proof that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) They exist where you claim.
>>>>>>>> b) The Bush administration willfully failed to do anything about the
>>>>>>>> WMD that they claimed were an "imminent threat".
>>>>>>>> c) You are have a pass to be using the computer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I "am have" a pass?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, I changed my syntax and forgot to alter the typing and you became
>>>>>> overly confused. However, it did give you a great opportunity to hide
>>>>>> from the questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hide from them? You asked the same question half a dozen times.
>>>>
>>>> No, you have avoided them at every turn. You make bizarre and
>>>> unsubstaniated claims that run counter to mountains of evidence all
>>>> because you, it appears, you have an unreasonable fear of cake.
>>>>
>>>> So, where is the evidence that the WMD in Iraq existed after 1997:
>>
>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>
>> Amazing how he runs once he has to actually face his own words and
>> support them.
Anyone, anyone, Beuhler?
Gunner Asch
<DorkAs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:unclj55jco7gevelj...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:13:54 -0600, "ArmyOfDorkness"
>> <DorkAs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ep1lj5d3fr7a0mekc...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:52:47 -0600, Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jim Alder wrote:
>>>>>> Jeff M <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in
>>>>>> news:ZbmdnQ0X7Lw7YqXW...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like eight years of Obama/Biden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hate to burst your bubble, pal, but I don't see that happening.
>>>>>
>>>>>Clean your glasses, then.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if
>>>>>> Obama will even win the primary.
>>>>>
>>>>>Count on it. Incumbency is very powerful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So is poll ratings lower than Jimmy Carters....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>He's not even polling as low as George Bush
>>
>>
>> At Bush's worst. And he is on the waaaaaaay down.
>
>He's not even close to Bush terrible numbers. Bush still polls lower that
>Obama.
>
Chuckle..you are dreaming..and dreaming a fantasy.
Laugh laugh laugh
Gunner
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@lightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:20:56
-0800 in misc.survivalism:
all agreed, keeping him in the basement was a good thing, and if
telling him that Obama was doing a good job would insure that ...
well, I'm sure some would be willing to tell a little fib in the
interest of the greater good.
I wonder if he knows anybody who actually voted in the election,
let alone for some to the right of Obama.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> EVERY "reason" claimed was a blatent lie.
>
> Every one, eh? But you don't know what the other ones are, Cliff. So how
>do you know they were a lie?
It came out in the news & in congress, among many
other places.
And many knew in advance as well.
Where do you live? The moon?
http://www.alternet.org/story/16274
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk
>
>> "WMDs" is a proxy for all of them.
>
> Shorthand to accomodate your tiny mind, Cliff? That's convenient for you.
Find those "WMDs" yet?
>>>> they were not captured and you don't consider that failure.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> More winger lies.
>
> More Cliffie bullshit.
Find those "WMDs" yet?
>
>>>> Since they were such an imminent threat and they know where they are
>>>> then why didn't they go get them?
>>>
>>> Because it would involve invading another country.
>>
>> Like Iraq?
>
> Wow, you're even stupider than I thought, Cliff, and that's a mighty low
>bar for even YOU to limbo under.
Find those "WMDs" yet?
>
>> Or Canada?
>> Canada may be able to defend though.
>>
>>>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are being
>>>> ignored by the government?
>>>
>>> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling whining of the
>>>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong,
>>
>> What did he do?
>>
>>>I would consider that a failure.
>>
>> Look at the results.
>> You WERE warned.
>> Over & over again.
>
> Everything you do is 'over and over again', Cliff. It's still bullshit.
Find those "WMDs" yet?
Show them to us.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Find those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
Find those "WMDs" yet?
Insanity is buying winger lies.
--
Cliff
Jim Alder
I didn't say I did, I said I tried. Tried to teach you remedial English,
that is.
> I stated that Colin Powell declared the WMD an "imminent threat" in a
> speech at the UN, you responded with a complete non-sequitur
> about the "left agreed".
So you don't understand common Latin either, eh? FYI, "non sequitur" (no
hyphen) - Latin for "it does not follow" - refers to a conclusion that cannot
be reached by the logic that precedes it. You meant "unrelated". Which was
still wrong. I meant that the Left agreed with the reasons for invading Iraq
and, in fact, demanded action from Bush.
They did. For instance: "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
> Which had fuck all to do with your idiotic statement
> that the WMD were not the reason for the Iraq war.
I said they were not the main or the only reason for doing so, numb nuts.
> Ergo: Since the discussion was reasoning for the iraq war, the facts
> were that the Bush admin lied, you claim "the left agreed" as an
> excuse and therefore you blamed the people that were lied to for the
> lies of the administration.
Wow, that IS convoluted. Did you pull a muscle with those mental
gymnastics? I like how you fools pretend that Bush is the focal point of all
intelligence information and that he gets to filter out whatever he wants
before sending it on to the rest of the government. You don't really believe
that, do you?
> Now are you too stupid to follow the conversation and post without
> your idiotic non-sequiturs?
No, but I lack the patience to teach you how to understand how things
work.
>>>>> Unless you would actually care to have a go at the actual point, you
>>>>> know where you claimed that the WMD were peripheral and I pointed out
>>>>> that the main thrust for invading Iraq was made by Colin Powell at the
>>>>> UN and was substantially about the "imminent threat" the non-existant
>>>>> WMD presented.
>>>>
>>>> The case for invading Iraq was made by Bush in the state of the union
>>>> address. You will find a list of reasons there and WMDs were not the
only
>>>> one or even the leading one.
>>>
>>> Yes, just hold those hand tight against your ears and scream la-la-la as
>>> loud as you can.
>>
>> Is that YOUR secret? Is that your answer to the question you skipped
over
>> above?
>
> What a surprise, Adler with another of his vaunted:
> "I know you are but what am I?"
Hey! You managed to not answer the question yet again!! You're getting
good at dodging straight answers. And the name is Alder.
> Here is the hint, idiot:
As long as you're going to mimick everything I say, it's "goddamned
idiot".
> Cherry picking ONLY the evidence that
> supports your argument is the same a lying or covering your ears and
> hiding from the truth. You dismiss anything contrary such as the
> speech by Colin Powell before the world at the UN because it
> contradicts what your want to believe.
But you're blaming Bush for the invasion, not Powell, right? I told you
to see Bush's reasons in the SOTU address and you chose to go to Powell for
his reasons instead. So aren't YOU ignoring evidence and cherry picking your
own?
>>> The case was made AT THE UN by Colin Powell and declared that the WMD
>>> he claimer were present in Iraq were an "imminent threat".
>>>
>>> The WMD were THE reason to invade Iraq. No amount of ignoring the
>>> facts on your part can ever alter that.
>>
>> They were A reason.
>
> They were the Prime Reason, they were the "imminent threat".
You know, you can use 'cut and paste' to repeat it a thousand times. Maybe
that will make it true.
> Without
> the "imminent threat" there is no justification based upon the Bush
> Doctrine. You know, pre-emptive war?
>
> Here is Bush before the same UN:
> "We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when
> inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when
> they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one
> conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."
>
> Hans Blix in March 2003:
> "Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass
> destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there
> are mobile production units for biological weapons � [But] no evidence
> of proscribed activities have so far been found."
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of
the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to
win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
"In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The first
are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical
capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and
for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do
so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are
fulfilled.
As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and
what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so
far complying with our requests."
"These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in
Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to a lack of
evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks which must be
straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to
arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq, rather than being brushed
aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM.
Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of
earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will
eliminate the questions or reduce their number."
Blix addressing the UN - January 27, 2003
www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html
That's less than two months before your uncited and out of context quote
that would seem to imply that all is well and there is no suspicion of WMDs.
In short, I don't believe you. Cite your quote in the speech or paper
containing it.
> Weasel all you want, but the Bush Doctrine REQUIRES an imminent
> threat. Just like Bush described.
>
> Unless you have another imminent threat that the Bush Admin claimed?
"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
> Ergo they lied about the WMD, 10s of thousands of innocent civilians
> are dead and well over 4,000 US service people are dead for their
> lies. And you find this an acceptable result.
No, I find it a lie on your part.
> Why do you hate our men and women in uniform?
I don't even hate you, shit4brains. Why do you shed crocodile tears for
the soldiers who died in Iraq when we both know they are only an excuse for
you to whine about Bush yet again?
We won't know until you actually present some, now will we?
> You do know about the Office of Special Plans and William Luti, right?
> You were not just covering for your ignorance and inability to
> construct a reasoned response?
I know your dumb ass opinion of Luti, yes. You already presented it. I
don't have the time nor the desire to comment on each and every one of your
whackjob notions.
Correction, 2003.
> 2 years before the invasion, to a country that despised
> him and against whom he had used WMD in the 1980s. Really, you believe
> that?
>
> What is even more hilarious, the real wingnut conspiracy with the
> Iraqi WMD is that they were moved to Syria and or Lebanon. No one
> would be so stupid to believe that a man you call insane would trust
> the Iranians with something that could kill him.
I didn't say they were smuggled to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally. Iran is
a big country.
> So here is where your claim gets to be supported by evidence. Go
> ahead, link to a reputable media, think tank or analysis that supports
> your claim:
>
>>
>> You're a goddamned idiot.
>
> You are getting angry because I won't let you lie and get away with
> it.
No, I am getting irritated because you keep asking the same questions as
if repetition will change my mind about what I know and don't know.
> Not my fault you do not lie very well or you are so gullible you
> will believe any lie that fits what you want to believe.
Not my fault you're a goddamned idiot.
What 'things'?
> Why does every other
> conspiracy loon say the WMD are in Syria and only you claim they are
> in Iran?
Because they don't know any better. And not 'every other conspiracy loon'
says that. Some say there were none and Bush lied about it to the entire
government because he had the key to the entire intelligence network and only
told the rest of the government what he wanted them to know. Now THAT is a
loony conspiracy.
> I can't find even one link that osits that bizarre theory.
> Only you and you claim it is a fact.
Oh well.
> Now, when the whole world is wrong and you believe you are right, that
> is indicative that you are a complete loon.
So you believe they were smuggled into Syria?
>>> Since I am not
>>> cliff and you could not support your claims with evidence there either
>>> that pretty much makes you a lying scum bag or a delusional wingnut.
>>
>> No, this all pretty much makes you a goddamned idiot.
>
> The definition of the word idiot does not include "unwilling to
> believe delusional rantings of a wingnut".
True. I do not use it as such.
>>> I'd actually present you are both.
>>
>> I actually don't give a flying fuck at the moon.
>
> Well, I doubt anyone else has the delusion that they can flying fuck
> the moon.
>
>>
>>>>> Who are these people and what are their
>>>>> plans for the WMD? You have that information since you have obviously
>>>>> concluded they are not a threat, give your reasoning and support your
>>>>> conclusion.
>>>
>>> Well, no claims that the "left agreed" or equally bizzarre claim?
>
> How about the 2001 move to Iran? Care to flesh that puppy out?
2003.
>>>>>>>>>>> What would you consider failure with respect to the WMD that are
>>>>>>>>>>> being ignored by the government?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the Bush administration had catered to the caterwauling
whining
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>Leftwing jagoffs who said everything he did was wrong, I would
>>>>>>>>>>consider that a failure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I must admit, you have provided a hilarious and insane wingnut
>>>>>>>>> conversation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then I suppose I must reciprocate and thank you for yet another
>>>>>>>> monotonous and myopic trip into the Leftwing's idea of 'debate'.
>>>>>>>> Thanks for nothing, literally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You consider myopic the ability to make you post hilarious delusions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consider you myopic and monotonous, as I said.
>>>>>
>>>>> So that was a yes. You do know that the word myopic has nothing to do
with
>>>>> the ability to make you post hilarious delusions?
>>
>>myopic - adj.
>>1. short-sighted, narrow, unimaginative, narrow-minded, small-minded,
>>unadventurous, near-sighted The government still has a myopic attitude to
>>spending. http://www.thefreedictionary.com
>
> So you agree then, you failed to use the word properly and that it
> doesn't have anything to do with my ability to make you post hilarious
> delusions.
It meant what I meant for it to mean. It describes you quite accurately.
> You know, like the one where the WMD are actually in Iran.
> I was quite amused by that one. I honestly had never heard any
> conspiracy loon give voice to that one.
Yes, you've said that several times now.
>>>>> Here is the other issue, I also have an astigmatism. How do your
>>>>> imaginings assay that fact?
>>>
>>> Well? Does astigmatism have any effect upon reasoning in your world?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, you have completely rewritten history and
apologized
>>>>>>>>> for the most inept administration since Grant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I've answered your questions. As always, it was a waste of
>>>>>>>> time, because Liberals only ask questions so they can ridicule
the
>>>>>>>> answers because they think they already know everything, no
>>>>>>>> matter how often they are shown to be the clueless fucks that
>>>>>>>> they are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you did not answer them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I did.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is just a lie.
>>>
>>> I see you do not disagree with my assertion that you lied.
>>
>> Of course I disagreed with it. Did you expect me to keep on disagreeing
>> with it every time you say it. Are you a child?
>
> So, you agree, you lied, again.
So you are a child? That would explain a lot.
Did you know that George Washington was a British General before the
Revolutionary War? Things change.
>>>>>>>> And now it's time for a condescending and mildly creepy homo-
erotic
>>>>>>>> reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would not expect anything more of you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, cupcake,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, right on cue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you imagine being called a small frosted cake to be homo-erotic?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends. Are you a woman? If not, then yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if a man thinks you to be a small frosted cake you find it erotic.
>>>>> However, if a woman were to think of you as a small frosted cake then
>>>>> it is not erotic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have some highly developed *issues*...
>>>
>>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>
> I apologize for belittling your bizarre sexual fetish.
When will you apologize for being a goddamned idiot?
--
Aratzio
Well, you still can't figure it out:
Me "war reason was WMD" <- my declaration
You: "not the reason" <- verifiably wrong refutation
Me: "Powell at UN declares immenent threat" <- factual refutation
You: "The left agreed" <- complete non sequitur
See how that works, your response has nothing to do with the previous
declaration by you that the WMD were not the reason for the Irag war.
So are you up to speed on how stupid you are?
>
> They did. For instance: "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
No one but you cares WHO was concerned about the WMD, you idiot. You
claimed that the WMD were not the reason for the invasion of Irag.
You were wrong and are still trying to deflect with your non sequitur
about WHO cared about the WMD.
>
>> Which had fuck all to do with your idiotic statement
>> that the WMD were not the reason for the Iraq war.
>
> I said they were not the main or the only reason for doing so, numb nuts.
Jebus fuck, if you are going to lie, at least snip what you wrote.
Me: they were the most obvious basis for the invasion
You: No, they weren't. <- full stop end of sentence
You can't even keep your own lies straight when you try to deflect
with your non sequiturs.
>
>
>> Ergo: Since the discussion was reasoning for the iraq war, the facts
>> were that the Bush admin lied, you claim "the left agreed" as an
>> excuse and therefore you blamed the people that were lied to for the
>> lies of the administration.
>
> Wow, that IS convoluted. Did you pull a muscle with those mental
>gymnastics? I like how you fools pretend that Bush is the focal point of all
>intelligence information and that he gets to filter out whatever he wants
>before sending it on to the rest of the government. You don't really believe
>that, do you?
So what did you think you were refuting about the WMD when you wrote
"The Left agreed"? Did the lefts agreement have anything to do with
the rationale for the Irag war? The left's (in congress) agreement
there were WMD means that your claim that the WMD were not the obvious
reason for the invasion is related in what way?
Really, if you want to try to deflect from your incredibly obvious
error stating that the WMD were not ythe obvious reason for the
invasion you should attempt it with less of your own words. You know,
the whole petard thing.
>
>> Now are you too stupid to follow the conversation and post without
>> your idiotic non-sequiturs?
>
> No, but I lack the patience to teach you how to understand how things
>work.
Well, your demonstraion of deflection by non sequitur was only
partially successful:
Me "war reason was WMD" <- my declaration
You: "not the reason" <- verifiably wrong refutation
Me: "Powell at UN declares immenent threat" <- factual refutation
You: "The left agreed" <- complete non sequitur
You still claimed that the WMD were not the obvious reason for the
invasion of Irag.
That was just stupid.
So, where in Iran do you believe the Saddam hid the WMD that he did
not have?
>
>>>>>> Unless you would actually care to have a go at the actual point, you
>>>>>> know where you claimed that the WMD were peripheral and I pointed out
>>>>>> that the main thrust for invading Iraq was made by Colin Powell at the
>>>>>> UN and was substantially about the "imminent threat" the non-existant
>>>>>> WMD presented.
>>>>>
>>>>> The case for invading Iraq was made by Bush in the state of the union
>>>>> address. You will find a list of reasons there and WMDs were not the
>only
>>>>> one or even the leading one.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, just hold those hand tight against your ears and scream la-la-la as
>>>> loud as you can.
>>>
>>> Is that YOUR secret? Is that your answer to the question you skipped
>over
>>> above?
>>
>> What a surprise, Adler with another of his vaunted:
>> "I know you are but what am I?"
>
> Hey! You managed to not answer the question yet again!! You're getting
>good at dodging straight answers. And the name is Alder.
What question, Adell? Did you have a sentence that ended with a
question mark, Addie? You do know that the sentence should end with a
question mark when you ask a question, Addled?
Your one and only "point" was to claim the only rationale you will
accept is the State of the Union speech and the speech by Powell
before the UN does not count. Would you accept the speech by Bush
before the UN or does that cause you to scream LALALALA with your ears
covered too?
>
>> Here is the hint, idiot:
>
> As long as you're going to mimick everything I say, it's "goddamned
>idiot".
Well, your reading skills failed you, idiot.
>
>> Cherry picking ONLY the evidence that
>> supports your argument is the same a lying or covering your ears and
>> hiding from the truth. You dismiss anything contrary such as the
>> speech by Colin Powell before the world at the UN because it
>> contradicts what your want to believe.
>
> But you're blaming Bush for the invasion, not Powell, right? I told you
>to see Bush's reasons in the SOTU address and you chose to go to Powell for
>his reasons instead. So aren't YOU ignoring evidence and cherry picking your
>own?
You really should brush up on comprehension.
Me mulitple times: "Bush Administration"
Really, do you think expounding about your English and Latin skills is
appropriate when you can't even follow simple conversation? It is all
still up there, you should probably review before proceeding, Antler.
So, now that we have that cleared up and your latest point is shown to
be a complete red herring, would you like a go at refuting my
statements again, stinking to the actual facts rather than what you
want the words to have been?
>
>>>> The case was made AT THE UN by Colin Powell and declared that the WMD
>>>> he claimer were present in Iraq were an "imminent threat".
>>>>
>>>> The WMD were THE reason to invade Iraq. No amount of ignoring the
>>>> facts on your part can ever alter that.
>>>
>>> They were A reason.
>>
>> They were the Prime Reason, they were the "imminent threat".
>
> You know, you can use 'cut and paste' to repeat it a thousand times. Maybe
>that will make it true.
Are you saying that the WMD were not the "imminent threat" declared by
both Bush and Powell before the UN?
So what was the threat as required by the invocation of the Bush
Doctrine?
Yes, the inspections were not complete in January. You point being,
what exactly?
That Bush did not go before the UN and claim the WMD were and that the
regime was not a threat?
>
> That's less than two months before your uncited and out of context quote
>that would seem to imply that all is well and there is no suspicion of WMDs.
>In short, I don't believe you. Cite your quote in the speech or paper
>containing it.
BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA
"uncited"
That from the guy who refuses to back up his most basic claim. That
the WMD are in Iran.
Irony Meters are now on Z scale.
Yes, his comments about Iraq are quite damning, yet he also stated in
that same speech that he was getting the job done.
So if he was getting the job done and building up and training his
inspection team, why did we invade. Without a UN resolution.
>
>> Weasel all you want, but the Bush Doctrine REQUIRES an imminent
>> threat. Just like Bush described.
>>
>> Unless you have another imminent threat that the Bush Admin claimed?
>
<non sequitur alert>
>"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
>throughout his country."
>-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
What does your answer have to do with the determination of the
"imminent threat" as required by the Bush Doctrine? What does Gore
have to do with your claim that the WMD were not the obvious reason
for the Irag invasion? He was wrong too. But then he was being fed
cherry picked intelligence from Rumsfeld Office of Special Plans.
I'll give you another opportunty to avoid answering:
What was the imminent threat justification under the Bush Doctrine?
>
<you can just see Addled holding his hands to his ears and typing with
his nose>
>"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
What does your answer have to do with the determination of the
"imminent threat" as required by the Bush Doctrine? What does Gore
have to do with your claim that the WMD were not the obvious reason
for the Irag invasion? He was wrong too. But then he was being fed
cherry picked intelligence from Rumsfeld Office of Special Plans.
I'll give you another opportunty to avoid answering:
What was the imminent threat justification under the Bush Doctrine?
>
>"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
What does your answer have to do with the determination of the
"imminent threat" as required by the Bush Doctrine? What does Kennedy
have to do with your claim that the WMD were not the obvious reason
for the Irag invasion? He was wrong too. But then he was being fed
cherry picked intelligence from Rumsfeld Office of Special Plans.
I'll give you another opportunty to avoid answering:
What was the imminent threat justification under the Bush Doctrine?
>
>> Ergo they lied about the WMD, 10s of thousands of innocent civilians
>> are dead and well over 4,000 US service people are dead for their
>> lies. And you find this an acceptable result.
>
> No, I find it a lie on your part.
There are not 10s of thousands of innocents dead and over 4,000 US
service people dead?
>
>> Why do you hate our men and women in uniform?
>
> I don't even hate you, shit4brains. Why do you shed crocodile tears for
>the soldiers who died in Iraq when we both know they are only an excuse for
>you to whine about Bush yet again?
I opposed the invasion from day one. My position has never changed. I
also have a DD214. Look up "Office of Special Plans" and "William
Luti". Why did they need to "review" the intelligence?
Supporting the troops means not killing them for lies.
>
>>>> Now, where are the WMD you claim are being hidden and are now under
>>>> the control of a person that is not an "immenent threat".
>>>>
>>>> You can keep running from the question cupcake, but the longer you
>>>> run, the more insane you look.
Well, I am still awaiting any kind of support for your hilarious claim
the WMD were moved to Iran.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You know the ones that Hans Blix said did not exist and
>>>>>> the US said that the person actually on the ground, doing inspections,
>was
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> The inspectors who were lied to by military posing as scientists and
>>>>> kept them from inspecting thoroughly?
>>>>
>>>> That is a lie. Hans Blix has stated over and over that no one told him
>>>> where to inspect.
>>>>
>>>> You have proof otherwise you may present it now or just continue to
>>>> believe your lies.
>>>>
>>
>> So you accept you lied. Why bother lying if you are just going to get
>> caught?
>>
Well?
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your response was to blame someone else for agreeing with the lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it was not, but then you don't speak English very well. I said
>they
>>>>> were NOT lies and that the Left agreed that Iraq was a threat.
>>>>
>>>> But they have been proven to be lies. Cherry picked intelligence
>>>> repackaged to provide the excuse. The "Office of Special Plans" run by
>>>> an undersecratary named William Luti was created specifically for that
>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>> You really are devoid of information or is it just you ignore anything
>that
>>>> does not fit what you want to believe?
>>>
>>> More irony, eh?
>>
>> Lack of refutation of the actual facts and a non-sequitur, what a
>> surprise.
>>
>> You don't do well when faced with actual provable facts, do you?
>
> We won't know until you actually present some, now will we?
Like "the wmd are in Iran"? Your base claim. Where is the evidence?
Well, here you go:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa
http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2b.pdf
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&specific_cases_and_issues=officeOfSpecialPlans
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Office:of:Special:Plans.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold07262003.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/07/16/intelligence/index.html
Any other areas of ignorance you need alleviated?
You will note that there are no news stories or investigations that
conclude the OSP was not cooking the intelligence. The supposed
failure of the intelligence was contrived and the OSP was the culprit.
The war was based upon lies. The OSP cherry picked the intelligence
and misled Congress. The Administration then leaked the information to
the news media and then went on Talk shows and said "see it is
reported in the media, it must be true"
Lies and all those people are dead because of the lies. Even worse,
people like you defend those lies for purely ideological reasons.
So I will ask again, why do you hate the men and women serving in our
armed forces that you would support such lies.
What did the innocents of Iraq do to justify our killing 10s of
thousands of them?
>
>> You do know about the Office of Special Plans and William Luti, right?
>> You were not just covering for your ignorance and inability to
>> construct a reasoned response?
>
> I know your dumb ass opinion of Luti, yes. You already presented it. I
>don't have the time nor the desire to comment on each and every one of your
>whackjob notions.
What is my opinion of Luti?
How about the greatest investigative journalist in the USA?
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact
Sy Hersh is rarely ever wrong.
We won't even go into the lies of Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle.
And I ask once more: Your evidence?
>
>> 2 years before the invasion, to a country that despised
>> him and against whom he had used WMD in the 1980s. Really, you believe
>> that?
>>
>> What is even more hilarious, the real wingnut conspiracy with the
>> Iraqi WMD is that they were moved to Syria and or Lebanon. No one
>> would be so stupid to believe that a man you call insane would trust
>> the Iranians with something that could kill him.
>
> I didn't say they were smuggled to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally. Iran is
>a big country.
Ah, so he secretly had trucks and trucks full of WMD cross the border
to some super secret location that the Iranians do not know about?
And your evidence is?
>
>> So here is where your claim gets to be supported by evidence. Go
>> ahead, link to a reputable media, think tank or analysis that supports
>> your claim:
>>
<crickets>
>>>
>>> You're a goddamned idiot.
>>
>> You are getting angry because I won't let you lie and get away with
>> it.
>
> No, I am getting irritated because you keep asking the same questions as
>if repetition will change my mind about what I know and don't know.
Well, maybe you could actually answer the question?
Your evidence that the WMD were moved to Iran?
>
>> Not my fault you do not lie very well or you are so gullible you
>> will believe any lie that fits what you want to believe.
>
> Not my fault you're a goddamned idiot.
Well, perhaps you could educate me, what is the evidence that the WMD
are in Iran?
>
>> Your complete
>> and utter inability to reconcile the world as it is with the world as
>> you want it to be is not my fault.
>>
>>>
>>>> So who was it that moved those WMD East and what is your evidence to
>>>> support your claim? Do you have even one piece of evidence to support
>>>> your ludicrous claim?
>>>>
<crickets>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am shocked to learn you cannot support your most basic claim with
>>>>>> any sort of substantiated evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well.
>>>>
>>>> You do realize your delusions are not evidence?
>>
>> Well, do you?
<crickets>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here, post evidence where you know the WMD that did not exist are now
>>>>>>>> hiding:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Didn't say I would prove it, I said I knew it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The voices tell you or do you have super-secret back channels into the
>>>>>> *bowels* of government that fart you messages?
>>>>
>>>> Well, what about those voices you hear?
>>
>> They won't tell you, will they?
>> 7
<crickets>
Things like how you know the WMD are in Iran? You know some sort of
evidence that can prove you are not making it up?
>
>> Why does every other
>> conspiracy loon say the WMD are in Syria and only you claim they are
>> in Iran?
>
> Because they don't know any better. And not 'every other conspiracy loon'
>says that. Some say there were none and Bush lied about it to the entire
>government because he had the key to the entire intelligence network and only
>told the rest of the government what he wanted them to know. Now THAT is a
>loony conspiracy.
See linked evidence above.
Now, why does your conspiracy come up Iran and all the other lonns say
Syria? Do you have some special knowledge that the other loons don't
have?
>
>> I can't find even one link that osits that bizarre theory.
>> Only you and you claim it is a fact.
>
> Oh well.
Well, how about you link to your "evidence"?
>
>> Now, when the whole world is wrong and you believe you are right, that
>> is indicative that you are a complete loon.
>
> So you believe they were smuggled into Syria?
I never said that. Please feel free to quote he section where your
reading failure occured and you believe I wrote something like that:
>
>>>> Since I am not
>>>> cliff and you could not support your claims with evidence there either
>>>> that pretty much makes you a lying scum bag or a delusional wingnut.
>>>
>>> No, this all pretty much makes you a goddamned idiot.
>>
>> The definition of the word idiot does not include "unwilling to
>> believe delusional rantings of a wingnut".
>
> True. I do not use it as such.
That just shows you how little you understand about your own writings.
>
>>>> I'd actually present you are both.
>>>
>>> I actually don't give a flying fuck at the moon.
>>
>> Well, I doubt anyone else has the delusion that they can flying fuck
>> the moon.
<crickets>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Who are these people and what are their
>>>>>> plans for the WMD? You have that information since you have obviously
>>>>>> concluded they are not a threat, give your reasoning and support your
>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> Well, no claims that the "left agreed" or equally bizzarre claim?
>>
>> How about the 2001 move to Iran? Care to flesh that puppy out?
>
> 2003.
Care to flesh out the WMD move to Iran in, now, 2003?
Yep, I am going to keep asking until you admit you have no evidence
and that there is nothing in any publication or analysis that supports
your insane belief.
So, you just make it up as you go along or are their voices involved?
>
>> You know, like the one where the WMD are actually in Iran.
>> I was quite amused by that one. I honestly had never heard any
>> conspiracy loon give voice to that one.
>
> Yes, you've said that several times now.
Quite hilarious. You going to spend any time fleshing it out? Maybe
you could give the delusion a little buff up by explaining the
logistics of the move?
>
>>>>>> Here is the other issue, I also have an astigmatism. How do your
>>>>>> imaginings assay that fact?
>>>>
>>>> Well? Does astigmatism have any effect upon reasoning in your world?
<crickets>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, you have completely rewritten history and
>apologized
>>>>>>>>>> for the most inept administration since Grant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I've answered your questions. As always, it was a waste of
>>>>>>>>> time, because Liberals only ask questions so they can ridicule
>the
>>>>>>>>> answers because they think they already know everything, no
>>>>>>>>> matter how often they are shown to be the clueless fucks that
>>>>>>>>> they are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you did not answer them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. I did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is just a lie.
>>>>
>>>> I see you do not disagree with my assertion that you lied.
>>>
>>> Of course I disagreed with it. Did you expect me to keep on disagreeing
>>> with it every time you say it. Are you a child?
>>
>> So, you agree, you lied, again.
>
> So you are a child? That would explain a lot.
Trying to change the subject from your lying, how sad.
>
>>>>>>>> You entertain a number of people spewing
>>>>>>>> bumbling apologies for ineptt people all while blaming everyone but
>>>>>>>> the actual cuprits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blaming the Hussein family of psychos for the war with Iraq?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that would be a good place to start. Provide your evidence that
>>>>>> the Iraqi's, individually, politically or as a whole presented an
>>>>>> imminent threat to the security of the United States:
>>>>
>>>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>
>> Still awaiting your threat assesment. One that makes the case for
>> application of the Bush Doctrine.
>>
>> You do have a case, right? You aren't just going to pretend that your
>> pat answers based upon no facts at all will suffice?
<crickets>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain why why an Iragi, that did not even have a nuclear program, is
>>>>>> a greater threat than North Korea or Iran:
>>>>
>>>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>
>> Well, were they a greater threat than Iran or North Korea? Maybe you
>> only have that one *fact* in your head and that precludes you from
>> carrying on a discussion with regard to the actual security threats
>> faced by the USA?
<crickets>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain why the US governent, in the person of Donald Rumsfeld, was
>>>>>> supporting the Iraqi dictator you describe as a "family of psychos"
>>>>>> during the 80s:
>>>>>>
>>>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>
>> You did know that the USA under Reagan supported the Saddam regime?
>> You know the one you claim to be a "family of psychos".
>
> Did you know that George Washington was a British General before the
>Revolutionary War? Things change.
So Saddam was only insane once we wanted to invade his country.
>
>>>>>>>>> And now it's time for a condescending and mildly creepy homo-
>erotic
>>>>>>>>> reference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would not expect anything more of you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, cupcake,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep, right on cue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you imagine being called a small frosted cake to be homo-erotic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends. Are you a woman? If not, then yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if a man thinks you to be a small frosted cake you find it erotic.
>>>>>> However, if a woman were to think of you as a small frosted cake then
>>>>>> it is not erotic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have some highly developed *issues*...
>>>>
>>>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>
>> I apologize for belittling your bizarre sexual fetish.
>
> When will you apologize for being a goddamned idiot?
Well, if I had some qualified evidence that supported your claim that
the non-existant Iraqi WMD are now in Iran, I'd apologize for doubting
your hold on reality too.
>
>>>>>>>> Please feel free to expand upon your fear of cake:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where did I mention fear? Or was that your intent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely, that is the end game of making you post your hilarious
>>>>>> delusions, that you will develop a full blown case of jophaboia.
>>>>
>>>> Full blown jophobia.
>>
>> CAKE!
Scared you didn't I?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> where do *you* know the missing WMD have been hidden and
>>>>>>>>>> what is your proof that:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a) They exist where you claim.
>>>>>>>>>> b) The Bush administration willfully failed to do anything about the
>>>>>>>>>> WMD that they claimed were an "imminent threat".
>>>>>>>>>> c) You are have a pass to be using the computer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I "am have" a pass?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, I changed my syntax and forgot to alter the typing and you became
>>>>>>>> overly confused. However, it did give you a great opportunity to hide
>>>>>>>> from the questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hide from them? You asked the same question half a dozen times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you have avoided them at every turn. You make bizarre and
>>>>>> unsubstaniated claims that run counter to mountains of evidence all
>>>>>> because you, it appears, you have an unreasonable fear of cake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, where is the evidence that the WMD in Iraq existed after 1997:
>>>>
>>>> Hrmm, no response, what a surprise.
>>>>
>>>> Amazing how he runs once he has to actually face his own words and support
>>>> them.
>>
>> Anyone, anyone, Beuhler?
<crickets>
Gunner Asch
>
>> I stated that Colin Powell declared the WMD an "imminent threat" in a
>> speech at the UN, you responded with a complete non-sequitur
>> about the "left agreed".
"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman,
Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among
others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors
last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe
Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between
Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to
permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections;
Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including
chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress
toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint
resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline
Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and
some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he
has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb
18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to
its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not
yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has
chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the
United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture
than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know,
actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear
warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends
in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley
Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents
with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such
weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think
that, over the past four years, in the absence of international
inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques
Chirac, October 16, 2002
"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 in 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. 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. Should he succeed in that
endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the
Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back
in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry
into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving
those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in
April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades,
Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He
has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is
trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to
build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to
achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national
security. It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons
of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf
and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his
access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass
destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should
assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al
Gore, 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."
-- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to
deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." --
Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27,
2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy,
Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct
2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,
but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that
war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert
Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build
those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these
weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we
had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." --
John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations
Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq
disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry,
Jan 23, 2003
"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
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19,
2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for
the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N.
inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear
facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons
capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear
weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N.
inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is
neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons
against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While
weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no
inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has
continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."
-- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that
the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of
grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq
still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and
clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen
bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue
manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of
the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard
gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic
missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial
infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale
chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in
1998
"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. And that may happen sooner if he can
obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that
is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a
very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons
before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and
U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy
towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s
conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games
the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and
legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the
United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry
Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Aratzio
Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratfuck blithered....
>>
>>> I stated that Colin Powell declared the WMD an "imminent threat" in a
>>> speech at the UN, you responded with a complete non-sequitur
>>> about the "left agreed".
>
>
>
<non sequitur snip>
Gummy, you ignorant clot, what does ANYONE else's statements about the
cooked intelligence before the Irag invasion have to do with Antler
not being able to understand the primary reason for the invasion of
Iraq was the "imminent threat" of WMD? Which is what Colin Powell said
before the UN. As did Bush in different but substantially similar
terms.
Really, Gummy, if you have something to contribute, feel free. However
if you are going to try to distract from the fact Addled is out of his
fucking mind, it ain't gonna work.
Now if you can pull your head out of your ass maybe you can answer the
question that Addled is having such a problem with, what happened to
the WMD? He claims, completely unsupported that they were transfered
in 2003 to Iran. Where do you think they went?
Oh, and your killfile leaked again. You are hiding from me, remember?
Jim Alder
news:gncnj5lo6n90hig63...@4ax.com:
Which I never said.
> Me: "Powell at UN declares immenent threat" <- factual refutation
> You: "The left agreed" <- complete non sequitur
>
> See how that works, your response has nothing to do with the previous
> declaration by you that the WMD were not the reason for the Irag war.
I said - several times now - not the ONLY reason or the MAIN reason, both
of which suggest that it was A reason.
> So are you up to speed on how stupid you are?
No, but you're coming into clearer focus with every line, and it's not a
pleasant picture.
I wouldn't have thought it possible, but you just got stupider. See ya
around, dumb shit. I could barely tolerate your moronic repetition before.
Jim Alder
> Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>>Aratfuck blithered....
>>>
>>>> I stated that Colin Powell declared the WMD an "imminent threat" in a
>>>> speech at the UN, you responded with a complete non-sequitur about
>>>> the "left agreed".
>>
> <non sequitur snip>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Well, at least he got rid of the hyphen. Maybe he's not utterly
untrainable.
> Gummy, you ignorant clot, what does ANYONE else's statements about the
> cooked intelligence before the Irag invasion have to do with Antler
> not being able to understand the primary reason for the invasion of
> Iraq was the "imminent threat" of WMD? Which is what Colin Powell said
> before the UN. As did Bush in different but substantially similar
> terms.
What they illustrate is that WMDs IN THE HANDS OF HUSSEIN were the threat.
> Really, Gummy, if you have something to contribute, feel free. However
> if you are going to try to distract from the fact Addled is out of his
> fucking mind, it ain't gonna work.
>
> Now if you can pull your head out of your ass maybe you can answer the
> question that Addled is having such a problem with, what happened to
> the WMD? He claims, completely unsupported that they were transfered
> in 2003 to Iran. Where do you think they went?
>
> Oh, and your killfile leaked again. You are hiding from me, remember?
Why would anyone hide from a gibbering spidermonkey like you?
Aratzio
Me: So if they know where they are, they were the most obvious basis
for the invasion
You: No, they weren't.
So do explain how "No, they weren't" is not the same as "not the
reason" since the statement was about the reason for the invasion.
You do understand how a *paraphrase* works?
>
>> Me: "Powell at UN declares immenent threat" <- factual refutation
>> You: "The left agreed" <- complete non sequitur
>>
>> See how that works, your response has nothing to do with the previous
>> declaration by you that the WMD were not the reason for the Irag war.
>
> I said - several times now - not the ONLY reason or the MAIN reason, both
>of which suggest that it was A reason.
Me: So if they know where they are, they were the most obvious basis
for the invasion
You: No, they weren't.
So, if that doesn't mean what I say it does, exactly what did you mean
when you wrote the direct refutation of "No, they weren't"?
So, now that we know you cannot read, how about your non sequitur
where you go haring off about "the left agreed" when we were
discussion the rationale for the war? Are you going to address that ot
just agree what you wrote was a complete non sequitur and had nothing
to do with the discussion as to the reason for the Iraqi invasion.
Don't you hate when you try to distract from your fuck-ups and I just
keep coming back to them?
>
>> So are you up to speed on how stupid you are?
>
> No, but you're coming into clearer focus with every line, and it's not a
>pleasant picture.
Well now, about those non sequiturs? What does the left agreeing have
to do with the obvious basis of the war?
>
>>> They did. For instance: "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
>>
>> No one but you cares WHO was concerned about the WMD, you idiot. You
>> claimed that the WMD were not the reason for the invasion of Irag.
>>
>> You were wrong and are still trying to deflect with your non sequitur
>> about WHO cared about the WMD.
>>
<crickets>
>>>
>>>> Which had fuck all to do with your idiotic statement that the WMD were not
>>>> the reason for the Iraq war.
>>>
>>> I said they were not the main or the only reason for doing so, numb
>nuts.
>>
>> Jebus fuck, if you are going to lie, at least snip what you wrote.
>>
>> Me: they were the most obvious basis for the invasion
>> You: No, they weren't. <- full stop end of sentence
>>
>> You can't even keep your own lies straight when you try to deflect
>> with your non sequiturs.
>>
<crickets>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ergo: Since the discussion was reasoning for the iraq war, the facts
>>>> were that the Bush admin lied, you claim "the left agreed" as an
>>>> excuse and therefore you blamed the people that were lied to for the lies
>>>> of the administration.
>>>
>>> Wow, that IS convoluted. Did you pull a muscle with those mental
>>>gymnastics? I like how you fools pretend that Bush is the focal point of all
>>>intelligence information and that he gets to filter out whatever he wants
>>>before sending it on to the rest of the government. You don't really believe
>>>that, do you?
>>
>> So what did you think you were refuting about the WMD when you wrote
>> "The Left agreed"? Did the lefts agreement have anything to do with
>> the rationale for the Irag war? The left's (in congress) agreement
>> there were WMD means that your claim that the WMD were not the obvious
>> reason for the invasion is related in what way?
>>
>> Really, if you want to try to deflect from your incredibly obvious
>> error stating that the WMD were not ythe obvious reason for the
>> invasion you should attempt it with less of your own words. You know,
>> the whole petard thing.
>>
<crickets>
>>>
>>>> Now are you too stupid to follow the conversation and post without your
>>>> idiotic non-sequiturs?
>>>
>>> No, but I lack the patience to teach you how to understand how things
>>> work.
>>
>> Well, your demonstraion of deflection by non sequitur was only
>> partially successful:
>> Me "war reason was WMD" <- my declaration
>> You: "not the reason" <- verifiably wrong refutation
>> Me: "Powell at UN declares immenent threat" <- factual refutation
>> You: "The left agreed" <- complete non sequitur
>>
>> You still claimed that the WMD were not the obvious reason for the
>> invasion of Irag.
>>
>> That was just stupid.
>>
>> So, where in Iran do you believe the Saddam hid the WMD that he did
>> not have?
>>
<crickets>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless you would actually care to have a go at the actual point, you
>>>>>>>> know where you claimed that the WMD were peripheral and I pointed out
>>>>>>>> that the main thrust for invading Iraq was made by Colin Powell at the
>>>>>>>> UN and was substantially about the "imminent threat" the non-existant
>>>>>>>> WMD presented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The case for invading Iraq was made by Bush in the state of the union
>>>>>>> address. You will find a list of reasons there and WMDs were not the
>>>>>>> only one or even the leading one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, just hold those hand tight against your ears and scream la-la-la as
>>>>>> loud as you can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that YOUR secret? Is that your answer to the question you skipped
>>>>> over above?
>>>>
>>>> What a surprise, Adler with another of his vaunted:
>>>> "I know you are but what am I?"
>>>
>>> Hey! You managed to not answer the question yet again!! You're getting
>>> good at dodging straight answers. And the name is Alder.
>>
>> What question, Adell? Did you have a sentence that ended with a
>> question mark, Addie? You do know that the sentence should end with a
>> question mark when you ask a question, Addled?
>
> I wouldn't have thought it possible, but you just got stupider. See ya
>around, dumb shit. I could barely tolerate your moronic repetition before.
Quite amazing, you claim to ask a question that did not exist and then
get mad, huff and puff, and run away when the fallacy of your
statement is explained.
Bye Jimmy. Hope you come back real soon.
One last time:
So where is the evidence that the Iraqi WMD are in Iran?
Aratzio
Fred Hall <fkh...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>Translation: 'ratz made my pussy hurt, so I will now run away
I thought wingnuts were supposed to all be tough guys with the courage
of their convictions. Each able to withstand the slings and arrows of
the moderates and liberals.
What ever became of the rational conservative, like William F.
Buckley? All that is left are a bunch of cornspiracy kooks wearing
teabags on their hats carrying signs calling people "morans".
But I will give Addled this much, that belief the WMD are in Iran was
highly unique. So I give him points for originality.
Aratzio
Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>>Aratfuck blithered....
>>>>
>>>>> I stated that Colin Powell declared the WMD an "imminent threat" in a
>>>>> speech at the UN, you responded with a complete non-sequitur about
>>>>> the "left agreed".
>>>
>> <non sequitur snip>
>
Here is Addled back for more after just running away.
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> Well, at least he got rid of the hyphen. Maybe he's not utterly
>untrainable.
>
>> Gummy, you ignorant clot, what does ANYONE else's statements about the
>> cooked intelligence before the Irag invasion have to do with Antler
>> not being able to understand the primary reason for the invasion of
>> Iraq was the "imminent threat" of WMD? Which is what Colin Powell said
>> before the UN. As did Bush in different but substantially similar
>> terms.
>
> What they illustrate is that WMDs IN THE HANDS OF HUSSEIN were the threat.
No, they lied about that, cooked the intelligence to support that and
then invaded Iraq. You know, all those links you snipped about the
Office Of Special Plans.
Now, do you agree that the obvious reason, AS STATED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION, for the invasion of Iraq was the WMD?
>
>> Really, Gummy, if you have something to contribute, feel free. However
>> if you are going to try to distract from the fact Addled is out of his
>> fucking mind, it ain't gonna work.
>>
>> Now if you can pull your head out of your ass maybe you can answer the
>> question that Addled is having such a problem with, what happened to
>> the WMD? He claims, completely unsupported that they were transfered
>> in 2003 to Iran. Where do you think they went?
>>
>> Oh, and your killfile leaked again. You are hiding from me, remember?
>
> Why would anyone hide from a gibbering spidermonkey like you?
You just ran away, but here you are, back already. I am shocked at
your lack of conviction.
So, Addled, where is your evidence that the WMD, the reason for
invading Iraq, are in Iran? Still waiting. Why do you find it so hard
to support a claim you say is known by you and the government? Is it a
secret only the two of you share? Who, in the government, is in on the
secret with you?
Gunner Asch
>>
>>I thought wingnuts were supposed to all be tough guys with the courage
>>of their convictions. Each able to withstand the slings and arrows of
>>the moderates and liberals.
>
>Regardless of one's political spectrum leanings, when one can't refute
>facts, well, they do what Addled Jimmy did
>
>>
"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
Jim Alder
"I wouldn't have thought it possible, but you just got stupider. See ya
around, dumb shit. I could barely tolerate your moronic repetition before."
Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> was kind enough to come back and prove my
Okay, and I'll type slowly. Try not to be distracted by your lips moving
as you read.
"No, they weren't the most obvious basis for the invasion" is not the same
as "they were not the reason for the invasion" because WMDs can be A reason
for the invasion without being THE MOST OBVIOUS reason for the invasion or THE
reason for the invasion. Get it now? There were numerous reasons for the
invasion, which can be found in the SOTU address I have told you about at
least twice now.
> You do understand how a *paraphrase* works?
Don't pretend to teach me English, you fucking moron.
>>> Me: "Powell at UN declares immenent threat" <- factual refutation
>>> You: "The left agreed" <- complete non sequitur
>>>
>>> See how that works, your response has nothing to do with the previous
>>> declaration by you that the WMD were not the reason for the Irag war.
No, it HAS TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIM THAT BUSH LIED ABOUT THE WMDs BEING THERE
IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!
>> I said - several times now - not the ONLY reason or the MAIN reason,
both
>> of which suggest that it was A reason.
>
> Me: So if they know where they are, they were the most obvious basis
> for the invasion
>
> You: No, they weren't.
>
> So, if that doesn't mean what I say it does, exactly what did you mean
> when you wrote the direct refutation of "No, they weren't"?
Why do you ask the same stupid question over and over in the same fucking
post? Do you expect me to break in while you're typing and answer you? Or are
you just demented?
> So, now that we know you cannot read, how about your non sequitur
> where you go haring off about "the left agreed" when we were
> discussion the rationale for the war? Are you going to address that ot
> just agree what you wrote was a complete non sequitur and had nothing
> to do with the discussion as to the reason for the Iraqi invasion.
Why do you ask the same stupid question over and over in the same fucking
post? Do you expect me to break in while you're typing and answer you? Or are
you just demented?
And yes, I repeated that to be ironic.
> Don't you hate when you try to distract from your fuck-ups and I just
> keep coming back to them?
No, I just hate that you keep coming back.
>>> So are you up to speed on how stupid you are?
>>
>> No, but you're coming into clearer focus with every line, and it's not a
>> pleasant picture.
>
> Well now, about those non sequiturs? What does the left agreeing have
> to do with the obvious basis of the war?
Jesus, but you're an idiot.
--
Aratzio
Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:13:17 -0600, Fred Hall <fkh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I thought wingnuts were supposed to all be tough guys with the courage
>>>of their convictions. Each able to withstand the slings and arrows of
>>>the moderates and liberals.
>>
>>Regardless of one's political spectrum leanings, when one can't refute
>>facts, well, they do what Addled Jimmy did
>>
>>>
>
That or obsessively post a non sequitur that has nothing to do with
the discussion.
Hi, coward gummy.
Aratzio
>After I wrote;
So, Jimbo, we get back to one of the other major questions you have
avoided. So, if as you claim the meaning of your words does not mean
what they say and there fre the WMD are not even the main reason:
So, what is the "imminent threat" that is the rationale for the
invasion based upon the Bush Doctrine?
Go ahead, if the WMD are not the imminent threat and therefore the
most obvious reason, what do you imagine was the "imminent threat"
that Iraq presented?
>
>> You do understand how a *paraphrase* works?
>
> Don't pretend to teach me English, you fucking moron.
I can imagine many have failed before me. A lifetime of people trying
to teach you English and it has just never worked.
But you do understand how a paraphrase works?
>
>>>> Me: "Powell at UN declares immenent threat" <- factual refutation
>>>> You: "The left agreed" <- complete non sequitur
>>>>
>>>> See how that works, your response has nothing to do with the previous
>>>> declaration by you that the WMD were not the reason for the Irag war.
>
> No, it HAS TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIM THAT BUSH LIED ABOUT THE WMDs BEING THERE
>IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!
Jim, calm down, you know how your blood pressure gets when you start
frothing at the gills.
Now, Addled, dear boy, the issue was not the lying by the
Administration, that is well documented, the issue was that you were
trying to deflect the conversation away from your error that the WMD
were not the obvious reason. That was what was being discussed when
you went off on your "The Left knew" red herring/non sequitur.
Whether the left knew or didn't know has nothing to do with the WMD
being the obvious rationale, as stated by the administration, for the
invasion of Iraq.
As to where those non-existant WMD are now, you still haven't come up
with any thing that supports your claim. I am still awaiting your
evidence that the Iraqi WMD, that did not exist, were moved to Iran
and are now hidden from the Iranians, by Saddam.
>
>>> I said - several times now - not the ONLY reason or the MAIN reason,
>both
>>> of which suggest that it was A reason.
>>
>> Me: So if they know where they are, they were the most obvious basis
>> for the invasion
>>
>> You: No, they weren't.
>>
>> So, if that doesn't mean what I say it does, exactly what did you mean
>> when you wrote the direct refutation of "No, they weren't"?
>
> Why do you ask the same stupid question over and over in the same fucking
>post? Do you expect me to break in while you're typing and answer you? Or are
>you just demented?
Well, Jim, you keep claiming the world is flat and my evidence to the
conrary does not change. If you were able to keep your own end of the
conversation straight, rather than trying to alter what you said, I
would not have to keep reminding you that the words you stated are
still there and their meaning has not changed.
>
>> So, now that we know you cannot read, how about your non sequitur
>> where you go haring off about "the left agreed" when we were
>> discussion the rationale for the war? Are you going to address that ot
>> just agree what you wrote was a complete non sequitur and had nothing
>> to do with the discussion as to the reason for the Iraqi invasion.
>
> Why do you ask the same stupid question over and over in the same fucking
>post? Do you expect me to break in while you're typing and answer you? Or are
>you just demented?
Well, Jim, you keep claiming the world is flat and my evidence to the
conrary does not change. If you were able to keep your own end of the
conversation straight, rather than trying to alter what you said, I
would not have to keep reminding you that the words you stated are
still there and their meaning has not changed.
>
> And yes, I repeated that to be ironic.
Well, Jim, you keep claiming the world is flat and my evidence to the
conrary does not change. If you were able to keep your own end of the
conversation straight, rather than trying to alter what you said, I
would not have to keep reminding you that the words you stated are
still there and their meaning has not changed.
>
>> Don't you hate when you try to distract from your fuck-ups and I just
>> keep coming back to them?
>
> No, I just hate that you keep coming back.
Well, Jim, you keep claiming the world is flat and my evidence to the
conrary does not change. If you were able to keep your own end of the
conversation straight, rather than trying to alter what you said, I
would not have to keep reminding you that the words you stated are
still there and their meaning has not changed.
>
>>>> So are you up to speed on how stupid you are?
>>>
>>> No, but you're coming into clearer focus with every line, and it's not a
>>> pleasant picture.
>>
>> Well now, about those non sequiturs? What does the left agreeing have
>> to do with the obvious basis of the war?
>
> Jesus, but you're an idiot.
Well, what did the left agreeing with the cooked intelligence have to
do with the rationale for the war?
<crickets>
<crickets>
<crickets>
<crickets>
<crickets>
You really should keep your frothing to a minimum, you seem to lose a
lot of energy that could be used to actually answer questions like the
one above.
By again, Addled, will you be coming back again?
Aratzio
Fred Hall <fkh...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>Next wingnut has stepped up to the plate!
Gummy isn't even in the class with Addled. He skeered of coming out of
his bunker of doom.
He also knows I remember all of his wonderful comments. I'll dig it up
but my all time favorite was the one in 2003 when he and a fucknozzle
named Strider were planning the invasion of Iran. Since we had already
won in Iraq it was off to Tehran in 2 weeks. Hilarious stuff.
Aratzio
Fred Hall <fkh...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>Note: No response by Addled Jimmy
All his hand waving and histrionics are to avoid the question:
"So where is the evidence that the Iraqi WMD are in Iran?"
One of the major symptoms of Wingnut disease, he is incapable of
admitting a mstake.
Jim Alder
As you've already no doubt noticed, these have little effect. Ratzo is
using a binary approach to this 'discussion'. By that I mean he has two
arguments going, and when you present evidence against one, he says it is NOT
evidence agaisnt the other. You present arguments against his claim that Bush
lied about WMDs being in Iraq. He calls it a non sequitur because he is
applying it to a different argument.
Or maybe he's just goddamned idiot.
Of course, at this point he and Hall are both just falling back on the
Left's main tactic, that being dismissing you with ridicule.
Jim Alder
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
> Note: No response by Addled Jimmy
Note: Freddy the Dumbshit couldn't read the entire post because his lips
got tired, so doesn't know that not only did I answer the question, but
complained that his butt buddy repeated questions over and over in the same
post.
Jim Alder
news:4n0oj59d0sc2ma22p...@4ax.com:
I have not avoided any questions, you stupid cunt. You have avoided the
answers, just as you have just avoided this one. Your mind-numbing stupidity
grows with every post.
> So, if as you claim the meaning of your words does not mean
> what they say
See? You are too fucking stupid to bother with anymore. I could not
possibly explain things any clearer for you and you remain clueless. I think
it is your life choice.
> and there fre the WMD are not even the main reason:
>
> So, what is the "imminent threat" that is the rationale for the
> invasion based upon the Bush Doctrine?
>
> Go ahead, if the WMD are not the imminent threat and therefore the
> most obvious reason, what do you imagine was the "imminent threat"
> that Iraq presented?
You just read this, so I'll just cut and paste it for you a second time.
There were numerous reasons for the invasion, which can be found in the
SOTU address I have told you about at least twice now.
>>> You do understand how a *paraphrase* works?
>>
>> Don't pretend to teach me English, you fucking moron.
>
> I can imagine many have failed before me. A lifetime of people trying
> to teach you English and it has just never worked.
>
> But you do understand how a paraphrase works?
Don't pretend to teach me English, you fucking moron.
>>>>> Me: "Powell at UN declares immenent threat" <- factual refutation
>>>>> You: "The left agreed" <- complete non sequitur
>>>>>
>>>>> See how that works, your response has nothing to do with the previous
>>>>> declaration by you that the WMD were not the reason for the Irag war.
>>
>> No, it HAS TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIM THAT BUSH LIED ABOUT THE WMDs BEING
THERE
>>IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!
>
> Jim, calm down, you know how your blood pressure gets when you start
> frothing at the gills.
Why don't you kiss my ass, you stupid fuck?
> Now, Addled, dear boy,
Fuck off.
--
Jim Alder
news:j0unj5t7aohp2da1e...@4ax.com:
You know, a 'flasher' will expose his genitals to women so that, when the
woman runs away in disgust, they can pretend that their genitals are
intimidating and the women run away in fear, not disgust.
Like those perverts, you hear me say you are too stupid to deal with any
further, calling me childish names and belaboring every point no matter how
many times I answer them, you pretend I am 'afraid' of you.
> So, Addled, where is your evidence that the WMD, the reason for
> invading Iraq, are in Iran? Still waiting. Why do you find it so hard
> to support a claim you say is known by you and the government? Is it a
> secret only the two of you share? Who, in the government, is in on the
> secret with you?
I don't know. I didn't learn it from THIS government.