#Dean blasts Limpbags for "phony soldiers" remark
3800 Dead
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070928/pl_usnw/dean_condemns_rush_limbaugh_s_comments_calling_soldiers_who_want_u_s__withdrawal_from_iraq__phony__and_calls_on_him_to_apologiz
Dean Condemns Rush Limbaugh's Comments Calling Soldiers Who Want U.S.
Withdrawal from Iraq 'Phony' and Calls on Him to Apologize
Thu Sep 27, 8:51 PM ET
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean condemned conservative
commentator Rush Limbaugh for saying on his radio show Wednesday that
service members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq must be "phony
soldiers," and called on him to apologize for these offensive
comments.
"Rush Limbaugh should immediately apologize to our brave men and women
in uniform for undermining the sacrifices they make every day serving
our country. Limbaugh's comments were un-American, have no place in
the public discourse, and show just how far he'll go to defend
President Bush's failed policy in Iraq. America's troops deserve
better, and Limbaugh owes them an apology."
Rush Limbaugh Calls Service Members Who Advocate U.S. Withdrawal from
Iraq "Phony Soldiers." In response to a caller, a veteran who
supported ending the war, Limbaugh and another caller said soldiers
who want to bring our troops home were "phony soldiers." The second
caller said, "And what's really funny is they never talk to real
soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and
spout to the media." Limbaugh responded, "The phony soldiers."
[Rushlimbaugh.com, 9/29/07]
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
http://www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's
committee.
--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government
talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Jim Alder
news:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Democratic National
Committee Chairman Howard "I Have A Scream" Dean condemned conservative
commentator Rush Limbaugh for saying on his radio show Wednesday that service
members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq must be "phony soldiers," and
called on him to apologize for these offensive comments.
Of course, that's not what he said, nor did he originate the thought. The
caller complained; 'And what's really funny is they never talk to real
soldiers. They like to poll these soldiers that come up out of the blue, and
talk to the media..."
Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
Caller: "...the phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldiers, they're
proud to serve."
--
President Bush was so buoyed by the warm reception he was given in Albania
that he immediately gave all 3 million Albanians American citizenship,
provided they learn Spanish. - Ann Coulter
3800 Dead
wrote:
>3800 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>news:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>
>WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Democratic National
>Committee Chairman Howard "I Have A Scream" Dean condemned conservative
>commentator Rush Limbaugh for saying on his radio show Wednesday that service
>members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq must be "phony soldiers," and
>called on him to apologize for these offensive comments.
>
> Of course, that's not what he said, nor did he originate the thought. The
>caller complained; 'And what's really funny is they never talk to real
>soldiers. They like to poll these soldiers that come up out of the blue, and
>talk to the media..."
>
>Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
>
>Caller: "...the phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldiers, they're
>proud to serve."
Looks like that cowardly fat draft dodger is calling soldiers who
served, came back, and are telling the country its making a horrible
mistake "phony soldiers".
What a piece of shit he is!
Kevin Cunningham
> 3800 Dead <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote innews:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Democratic National
> Committee Chairman Howard "I Have A Scream" Dean condemned conservative
> commentator Rush Limbaugh for saying on his radio show Wednesday that service
> members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq must be "phony soldiers," and
> called on him to apologize for these offensive comments.
>
> Of course, that's not what he said, nor did he originate the thought. The
> caller complained; 'And what's really funny is they never talk to real
> soldiers. They like to poll these soldiers that come up out of the blue, and
> talk to the media..."
>
> Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
>
> Caller: "...the phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldiers, they're
> proud to serve."
>
First of all have the good graces to tell us who wrote the above
obscenity.
Now, here's the point. Drug addled, fag Limbaugh said what every one
agreed he said. He, a person who evaded the Vietnam war, had the
cowardice to accuse our troops of not knowing what their doing.
Do you support this coward?
milt....@gmail.com
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Democratic National
> Committee Chairman Howard "I Have A Scream" Dean condemned conservative
> commentator Rush Limbaugh for saying on his radio show Wednesday that service
> members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq must be "phony soldiers," and
> called on him to apologize for these offensive comments.
>
> Of course, that's not what he said, nor did he originate the thought. The
> caller complained; 'And what's really funny is they never talk to real
> soldiers. They like to poll these soldiers that come up out of the blue, and
> talk to the media..."
>
> Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
>
> Caller: "...the phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldiers, they're
> proud to serve."
>
Even if he didn't say it first, he didn't correct the caller. Not only
that, but he repeated it. And he did so twice.
You know what? if Limbaugh wants to call some soldiers "phony," hey;
it's his right as an American. But don't expect that he gets to do so
without criticism.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:25:19 -0500, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >3800 Dead <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
It does seem as if the press is waking up, finally, though. They're
just not getting away with the crap they used to...
Now, if only the press would start fact-checking these bozos...
milt....@gmail.com
Oh, Jim will support and defend anything any right wing idiot says, no
matter how horrible.
Jim Alder
@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> > 3800 Dead <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Democratic
National
>> > Committee Chairman Howard "I Have A Scream" Dean condemned conservative
>> > commentator Rush Limbaugh for saying on his radio show Wednesday that
service
>> > members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq must be "phony soldiers,"
and called on him to
>> > apologize for these offensive comments.
>>
>> > Of course, that's not what he said, nor did he originate the thought.
The
>> > caller complained; 'And what's really funny is they never talk to real
>> > soldiers. They like to poll these soldiers that come up out of the blue,
and talk to the media..."
>>
>> > Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
>>
>> > Caller: "...the phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldiers, they're
proud to serve."
>>
>> First of all have the good graces to tell us who wrote the above obscenity.
I didn't post the article, Kev. Zeppy the Pinhead did. It is followed by;
"Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee." It doesn't say
who wrote it.
And since I agree that the article is obscene, I can safely assume that
you refer to the remainder of my post. I wrote that, Kev. Every word.
>> Now, here's the point.
Oh good, you have one!
>> Drug addled, fag Limbaugh...
Your point was that you're a ten year old brat who can't mention someone's
name without tacking on childish insults?
I already knew that.
>> ...said what every one agreed he said.
Yes, he said "phony soldiers" in response to the description given by the
caller, who agreed.
>> He, a person who evaded the Vietnam war, had the
>> cowardice to accuse our troops of not knowing what their doing.
That'd be "what THEY'RE doing." And when did he do that? Certainly not in
that two-word phrase.
>> Do you support this coward?
I'm more that happy to defend him in this newsgroup when morons accuse him
with vapid claims.
> Oh, Jim will support and defend anything any right wing idiot says, no
> matter how horrible.
Bite me.
tops...@gmail.com
newspaper. They could hurt his feelings.
Although Petraeus has been in the Army for 23 years he didn't see any
combat till 3 years ago. He did manage to write a paper about Vietnam
when he was at Princeton.
Jim Alder
news:49bqf3lsjucslcfpq...@4ax.com:
Well, no, it doesn't look or sound that way at all, but it's what your
leftwing media told you it is supposed to sound like, so you hear and obey.
You can hear rush's side of the story here, but I know you won't. One
doesn't get as stupid as you by listening to both sides of a story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%
2Erushlimbaugh%2Ecom%2Fhome%2Ftoday%2Eguest%2Ehtml
> What a piece of shit he is!
--
Bert Hyman
news:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
> Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
That's nice.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
George Grapman
Maybe in your parallel universe the Limbaugh transcript does not say
what it says.
Tops...@aol.com
Perino said: "The President believes that if you are serving in the
military that you have the rights that every American has which is
you're free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there
are some that oppose the war, and that's okay."
Pressed specifically about Rush's "phony soldiers" phrase, she added:
"It's not what the President would have used, no."
Topset72
3800 Dead
>zepp22...@finestplanet.com (3800 Dead) wrote in
>news:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>
>> Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
>
>That's nice.
Run along, Burtie. It's time for you to piss on troops who aren't
members of the GOP.
3800 Dead
wrote:
By now, you've probably heard that that pill-popping, cowardly piece
of shit edited the transcript.
Even a worthless wastral like George W. has condemned him.
But you can't.
Party before country, eh, Jimmy boy?
Steve
Like how Rather got fact-checked... yeah, that would be OK... too
bad nobody fact checked media matters lies dishonesty about
O'Reilly...
Jim Alder
19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
> Republicans only try and protect 4-star generals from ads in the
> newspaper. They could hurt his feelings.
Yeah, right. It's not about some foreign billionaire trying to undermine
the public's support for the war still further. It's not about a bunch of
lying Democrats who spoke out about how great a choice Patreus was until he
gave an opinion they didn't like, at which point they tried to stab him in the
back.
It's about the poor little general's "feelings".
> Although Petraeus has been in the Army for 23 years he didn't see any
> combat till 3 years ago. He did manage to write a paper about Vietnam
> when he was at Princeton.
He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault
infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a
battalion in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and a brigade in the
82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff
assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and
division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied
Commander - Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti;
and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top
graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He
subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from
Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations
at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown
University.
Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense
Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal,
two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of
Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor
Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi
Order of the Date Palm. He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and
Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French,
British, and German Jump Wings. In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News
and World Report as one of America’s 25 Best Leaders.
Oh, and he wrote a paper at Princeton.
Jim Alder
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 28, 11:25 am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
> Perino said:
In reference to: "Rush Limbaugh's assertion that troops who want to
withdraw from Iraq are 'phony soldiers'." (which is, as stated in the post
you're responding to, NOT what he said)
> "The President believes that if you are serving in the
> military that you have the rights that every American has which is
> you're free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there
> are some that oppose the war, and that's okay."
Do you think he meant that it was okay to lie, too? To represent yourself
as a war veteran when you weren't? To claim medals you never received? That's
the kind of phony soldiers they were talking about.
> Pressed specifically about Rush's "phony soldiers" phrase, she added:
> "It's not what the President would have used, no."
He might have used 'lying opportunisitic scum' on either the phony soldiers
Rush was talking about or perhaps on the reporters and Democrats trying to
turn this into a smear.
> http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/breaking_white_house_faults_rush_over_
phony_soldiers_comment.php
>
> Topset72
Jim Alder
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 28, 11:25 am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> 3800 Dead <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote
innews:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>>
>> WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Democratic National
>> Committee Chairman Howard "I Have A Scream" Dean condemned conservative
>> commentator Rush Limbaugh for saying on his radio show Wednesday that
service
>> members who support U.S. withdrawal from Iraq must be "phony soldiers," and
>> called on him to apologize for these offensive comments.
>>
>> Of course, that's not what he said, nor did he originate the thought.
The
>> caller complained; 'And what's really funny is they never talk to real
>> soldiers. They like to poll these soldiers that come up out of the blue,
and
>> talk to the media..."
>>
>> Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
>>
>> Caller: "...the phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldiers, they're
>> proud to serve."
>>
>
> Even if he didn't say it first, he didn't correct the caller.
There was nothign to correct.
> Not only that, but he repeated it. And he did so twice.
That's what 'repeat' means, Milt.
> You know what? if Limbaugh wants to call some soldiers "phony," hey;
> it's his right as an American. But don't expect that he gets to do so
> without criticism.
I don't expect him to make a comment, smoke a cigar or breath in and out
without criticism. It's all the divisive Left does these days, criticize every
move anyone on the Right makes. Oh, and lie when necessary, of course.
Jim Alder
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:
I didn't read the transcript, George. I listened to the audio on Media
Matters.
>> You can hear rush's side of the story here, but I know you won't. One
>> doesn't get as stupid as you by listening to both sides of a story.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%
>> 2Erushlimbaugh%2Ecom%2Fhome%2Ftoday%2Eguest%2Ehtml
>>
>>
>>> What a piece of shit he is!
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Jim Alder
Is that what they're ttelling you at Moveon.org?
> Even a worthless wastral like George W. has condemned him.
Yeah? What did he say? Oh, and please cite a source I won't laugh at.
> But you can't.
Criticise Limbaugh? Sure I can. That doesn't mean I will fall in line with
the rest of you lemmings any time the media tries to smear him.
> Party before country, eh, Jimmy boy?
You'd know more about that than anyone, Zeppy, you partisan shithead.
Jim Alder
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
Like they fact-check people like Jesse MacBeth? Be careful what you wish
for, Miltie.
3800 Dead
wrote:
>Tops...@aol.com wrote in news:1191015172.365558.202700
>@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Sep 28, 11:25 am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Perino said:
>
> In reference to: "Rush Limbaugh's assertion that troops who want to
>withdraw from Iraq are 'phony soldiers'." (which is, as stated in the post
>you're responding to, NOT what he said)
>
>> "The President believes that if you are serving in the
>> military that you have the rights that every American has which is
>> you're free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there
>> are some that oppose the war, and that's okay."
>
> Do you think he meant that it was okay to lie, too? To represent yourself
>as a war veteran when you weren't? To claim medals you never received? That's
>the kind of phony soldiers they were talking about.
Oh, please. Limpballs clearly meant soldiers who opposed the
occupation.
This is sillier and more pathetic than the "fooled by cue cards" think
when he insulted a 12 year old girl.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>Tops...@aol.com wrote :
>>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>> Perino said:
>>
>> In reference to: "Rush Limbaugh's assertion that troops who want to
>> withdraw from Iraq are 'phony soldiers'." (which is, as stated in the post
>> you're responding to, NOT what he said)
>>
>>> "The President believes that if you are serving in the
>>> military that you have the rights that every American has which is
>>> you're free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there are
>>> some that oppose the war, and that's okay."
>>
>> Do you think he meant that it was okay to lie, too? To represent yourself
>>as a war veteran when you weren't? To claim medals you never received?
That's
>>the kind of phony soldiers they were talking about.
>
> Oh, please. Limpballs clearly meant soldiers who opposed the
> occupation.
Why, because Democratunderground dot com told you that's what he clearly
meant? Limbaugh has never insulted the military in ANY way that I have ever
heard of, let alone so blatantly.
> This is sillier and more pathetic than the "fooled by cue cards" think
> when he insulted a 12 year old girl.
That you're still milking that lie after 18 years is what's really
pathetic.
3800 Dead
wrote:
>3800 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>Tops...@aol.com wrote :
>>>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>> Perino said:
>>>
>>> In reference to: "Rush Limbaugh's assertion that troops who want to
>>> withdraw from Iraq are 'phony soldiers'." (which is, as stated in the post
>>> you're responding to, NOT what he said)
>>>
>>>> "The President believes that if you are serving in the
>>>> military that you have the rights that every American has which is
>>>> you're free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there are
>>>> some that oppose the war, and that's okay."
>>>
>>> Do you think he meant that it was okay to lie, too? To represent yourself
>>>as a war veteran when you weren't? To claim medals you never received?
>That's
>>>the kind of phony soldiers they were talking about.
>>
>> Oh, please. Limpballs clearly meant soldiers who opposed the
>> occupation.
>
> Why, because Democratunderground dot com told you that's what he clearly
>meant? Limbaugh has never insulted the military in ANY way that I have ever
>heard of, let alone so blatantly.
No, the transcript -- the REAL transcript -- make it clear what he
meant.
We've seen this before. He steps over a line, and rather than just
apologizing, he tries to lie and cover up. He's a coward, like most
bullies.
So why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
>
>> This is sillier and more pathetic than the "fooled by cue cards" think
>> when he insulted a 12 year old girl.
>
> That you're still milking that lie after 18 years is what's really
>pathetic.
That's when I lost all respect for the American far right. You're
cowards, the lot of you.
Jim Alder
Which one's the REAL one, Pinhead? What incriminating conversation was left
out?
> We've seen this before. He steps over a line, and rather than just
> apologizing, he tries to lie and cover up.
Of course you've seen it before, Pinhead, but that doesn't mean it actually
happened before.
> He's a coward, like most bullies.
Well, you Liberals can be SO terrifying.
> So why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
Because it's so entertaining watching chickenshit losers like you try to
bring down people like Limbaugh and Bush.
>>> This is sillier and more pathetic than the "fooled by cue cards" think
>>> when he insulted a 12 year old girl.
>>
>> That you're still milking that lie after 18 years is what's really
>> pathetic.
>
> That's when I lost all respect for the American far right. You're
> cowards, the lot of you.
Bite my lily white ass, you hatemongering moron.
3800 Dead
wrote:
The minute and a quarter of conversation between the "phony soldiers"
remark, and the individual Limbaugh later claimed he was speaking of.
Incidently, most individuals only make up one soldier, and not
"soldiers". Just a little grammar tip for conservatism's leading
voice.
>
>> We've seen this before. He steps over a line, and rather than just
>> apologizing, he tries to lie and cover up.
>
> Of course you've seen it before, Pinhead, but that doesn't mean it actually
>happened before.
Actually, it has. The Chelsea incident was the first, and expose the
true nature of the American right.
>
>> He's a coward, like most bullies.
>
> Well, you Liberals can be SO terrifying.
>
>> So why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
>
> Because it's so entertaining watching chickenshit losers like you try to
>bring down people like Limbaugh and Bush.
Why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
>
>>>> This is sillier and more pathetic than the "fooled by cue cards" think
>>>> when he insulted a 12 year old girl.
>>>
>>> That you're still milking that lie after 18 years is what's really
>>> pathetic.
>>
>> That's when I lost all respect for the American far right. You're
>> cowards, the lot of you.
>
> Bite my lily white ass, you hatemongering moron.
Don't you have any self-respect left?
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
Jesse Macbeth? He wasn't on the show. And Limbaugh talked about him
earlier. And I asked you what incriminating conversation was left out.
> Incidently, most individuals only make up one soldier, and not
> "soldiers". Just a little grammar tip for conservatism's leading
> voice.
The caller spoke of "real soldiers" and it's not like Macbeth is a unique
case.
>>> We've seen this before. He steps over a line, and rather than just
>>> apologizing, he tries to lie and cover up.
>>
>> Of course you've seen it before, Pinhead, but that doesn't mean it
actually
>> happened before.
>
> Actually, it has. The Chelsea incident was the first, and expose the
> true nature of the American right.
I almost typed "I can't believe" but of course it's no real surprise that
you're still milking that lie 18 years later. It does come as a bit of a shock
that you think of it as personifying the entire conservative side of politics.
But then, pinheads aren't known for their expansive thinking.
>>> He's a coward, like most bullies.
>>
>> Well, you Liberals can be SO terrifying.
>>
>>> So why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
>>
>> Because it's so entertaining watching chickenshit losers like you try to
>> bring down people like Limbaugh and Bush.
>
> Why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
Why are you repeating yourself? I just answered you.
>>>>> This is sillier and more pathetic than the "fooled by cue cards" think
>>>>> when he insulted a 12 year old girl.
>>>>
>>>> That you're still milking that lie after 18 years is what's really
>>>> pathetic.
>>>
>>> That's when I lost all respect for the American far right. You're
>>> cowards, the lot of you.
>>
>> Bite my lily white ass, you hatemongering moron.
>
> Don't you have any self-respect left?
I haven't killfiled you yet, so obviously not.
3800 Dead
wrote:
And I told you. The minute and a quater immediately following the
Limbaugh smear against "phony soldiers". Then, and only then, did
Jesse Macbeth's name come one, at which point the conversation had
moved on.
Limbaugh later cut out that minute and a quarter, in an effort to make
it look like the "soldiers" he referred to was MacBeth.
>
>> Incidently, most individuals only make up one soldier, and not
>> "soldiers". Just a little grammar tip for conservatism's leading
>> voice.
>
> The caller spoke of "real soldiers" and it's not like Macbeth is a unique
>case.
No, you cowardly right wingers hate any soldier who isn't a loyal
Republican.
>
>>>> We've seen this before. He steps over a line, and rather than just
>>>> apologizing, he tries to lie and cover up.
>>>
>>> Of course you've seen it before, Pinhead, but that doesn't mean it
>actually
>>> happened before.
>>
>> Actually, it has. The Chelsea incident was the first, and expose the
>> true nature of the American right.
>
> I almost typed "I can't believe" but of course it's no real surprise that
>you're still milking that lie 18 years later. It does come as a bit of a shock
>that you think of it as personifying the entire conservative side of politics.
>But then, pinheads aren't known for their expansive thinking.
>
Do you think it, and what it revealed about you, went away?
After all, you're still defending it, because you'll sink to any level
rather than fail to defend your tacky little party.
>>>> He's a coward, like most bullies.
>>>
>>> Well, you Liberals can be SO terrifying.
>>>
>>>> So why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
>>>
>>> Because it's so entertaining watching chickenshit losers like you try to
>>> bring down people like Limbaugh and Bush.
>>
>> Why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
>
> Why are you repeating yourself? I just answered you.
>
>>>>>> This is sillier and more pathetic than the "fooled by cue cards" think
>>>>>> when he insulted a 12 year old girl.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you're still milking that lie after 18 years is what's really
>>>>> pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> That's when I lost all respect for the American far right. You're
>>>> cowards, the lot of you.
>>>
>>> Bite my lily white ass, you hatemongering moron.
>>
>> Don't you have any self-respect left?
>
> I haven't killfiled you yet, so obviously not.
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
Gary DeWaay
> >
> >Now, if only the press would start fact-checking these bozos...
>
> Like how Rather got fact-checked... yeah, that would be OK... too
> bad nobody fact checked media matters lies dishonesty about
> O'Reilly...
>
Rather's document was phony. The FACTS were never even bothered to be
disputed.
HTH.
--
- Gary
Jim Alder
That doesn't tell me anything. Why did he see it necessary to eliminate
that 75 seconds of talk? What did he say in that that would indicate he was
insulting the military with his "phony soldiers" comment?
> Then, and only then, did
> Jesse Macbeth's name come one, at which point the conversation had
> moved on.
>
> Limbaugh later cut out that minute and a quarter, in an effort to make
> it look like the "soldiers" he referred to was MacBeth.
Obviously you aren't going to answer the question, so I was forced to go
look for myself. Ironically, I found it at Media Matters. While they try to
trash Limbaugh for his 'editing' they show quite obviously why he did that
edit. The soldier who called had a second question about finding WMDs which
was discussed briefly. Rush concluded that discussion with: "What, what's more
important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working.
And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling
out of there, which means that success on the part of you and, and your
colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them."
That's where the edit ends. Rush remarks about how frustrating it is, says
goodbye to the caller, then says "here is a "Morning Update" that we did
recently talking about fake soldiers."
Only the most transparent, duplicitous pinheads would try to pretend that
he had "moved on" from the discussion of 'phony soldiers' and now wanted to
talk about 'fake soldiers.'
You're a lying sack of shit, Zeppy the Pinhead.
>>> Incidently, most individuals only make up one soldier, and not
>>> "soldiers". Just a little grammar tip for conservatism's leading voice.
>>
>> The caller spoke of "real soldiers" and it's not like Macbeth is a
unique
>> case.
>
> No, you cowardly right wingers hate any soldier who isn't a loyal
> Republican.
I don't hate anyone, you lying slug. If it makes you feel any better, I do
pity pathetic fools like you, who can only identify with blind obedience, and
hate everything else.
>>>>> We've seen this before. He steps over a line, and rather than just
>>>>> apologizing, he tries to lie and cover up.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you've seen it before, Pinhead, but that doesn't mean it
>>>> actually happened before.
>>>
>>> Actually, it has. The Chelsea incident was the first, and expose the true
>>> nature of the American right.
>>
>> I almost typed "I can't believe" but of course it's no real surprise
that
>>you're still milking that lie 18 years later. It does come as a bit of a
shock
>>that you think of it as personifying the entire conservative side of
politics.
>>But then, pinheads aren't known for their expansive thinking.
>>
> Do you think it, and what it revealed about you, went away?
"What it revealed about" me. The simplemindedness of the devoted bigot is
pretty amazing sometimes. Here you can take a misrepresented split second I
never saw, brought about either by a talkshow host I never met or an unnamed
crew member we don't even know, and it reveals things to you about me!
> After all, you're still defending it...
Only in a warped and twisted little mind like yours is calling an
accusation "a lie" somehow 'defending' it.
> because you'll sink to any level rather than fail to defend your
> tacky little party.
Even to the point of responding to your insane rant of a post.
Jim Alder
news:MPG.2168b5efc...@news.midco.net:
> Rather's document was phony. The FACTS were never even bothered to be
> disputed.
Heh heh. FACTS in phony documents. Of course, there was nothing new in the
documents to dispute or discuss, it was just another attempt to back up Bush
hating bullshit with phony validation.
Steve
Why would anyone bother to dispute anything that was on a phony
document?
3800 Dead
wrote:
>Gary DeWaay <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in
>news:MPG.2168b5efc...@news.midco.net:
>
>
>> Rather's document was phony. The FACTS were never even bothered to be
>> disputed.
>
> Heh heh. FACTS in phony documents. Of course, there was nothing new in the
>documents to dispute or discuss, it was just another attempt to back up Bush
>hating bullshit with phony validation.
Yup, and I suspect that it will come out in trial. Rather will now
have power of subpoena as part of the Discovery process.
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:24:09 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Gary DeWaay <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in
>>news:MPG.2168b5efc...@news.midco.net:
>>
>>
>>> Rather's document was phony. The FACTS were never even bothered to be
>>> disputed.
>>
>> Heh heh. FACTS in phony documents. Of course, there was nothing new in the
>>documents to dispute or discuss, it was just another attempt to back up Bush
>>hating bullshit with phony validation.
>
>Yup, and I suspect that it will come out in trial. Rather will now
>have power of subpoena as part of the Discovery process.
First, If there were any non-phony documents, he's already have
them...
Second, the suit is only about Rather getting fired for failing to
properly backing up his story... and that's already a proven fact
without any trial.
This is only going to further hurt Rather, CBS and the lying Bush
haters... and that will be great fun to watch.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 06:06:43 -0700, 3800 Dead
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:24:09 -0500, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote in
> >>news:MPG.2168b5efc...@news.midco.net:
>
> >>> Rather's document was phony. The FACTS were never even bothered to be
> >>> disputed.
>
> >> Heh heh. FACTS in phony documents. Of course, there was nothing new in the
> >>documents to dispute or discuss, it was just another attempt to back up Bush
> >>hating bullshit with phony validation.
>
> >Yup, and I suspect that it will come out in trial. Rather will now
> >have power of subpoena as part of the Discovery process.
>
> First, If there were any non-phony documents, he's already have
> them...
>
> Second, the suit is only about Rather getting fired for failing to
> properly backing up his story... and that's already a proven fact
> without any trial.
>
> This is only going to further hurt Rather, CBS and the lying Bush
> haters... and that will be great fun to watch.
Well, I don't think Rather will win his suit, but it'll be based on a
technicality, not on any facts in the case. the FACTS are all in
Rather's favor. He was obviously set up; people who had never even
seen the documents close up were making claims like "the font is a
font not found on typewriters back then," just hours after the piece
broadcast.
The one thing this suit could do, however, will force a major
investigation into how he was set up, and who was behind it. That's
the beauty of the discovery process...
I predict he will depose Bush and Rove -- definitely Rove -- and that
could prove very interesting...
milt....@gmail.com
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:20:54 -0500, Gary DeWaay
>
>
>
> >Steve's at stevencan...@lefties.suk.net wisdom:
>
> >> >Now, if only the press would start fact-checking these bozos...
>
> >> Like how Rather got fact-checked... yeah, that would be OK... too
> >> bad nobody fact checked media matters lies dishonesty about
> >> O'Reilly...
>
> >Rather's document was phony. The FACTS were never even bothered to be
> >disputed.
>
> >HTH.
>
> Why would anyone bother to dispute anything that was on a phony
> document?
Um, because it was untrue?
3800 Dead
wrote:
He was trying to create the impression that he was referring
specifically to Jesse Macbeth
>
>> Then, and only then, did
>> Jesse Macbeth's name come one, at which point the conversation had
>> moved on.
>>
>> Limbaugh later cut out that minute and a quarter, in an effort to make
>> it look like the "soldiers" he referred to was MacBeth.
>
> Obviously you aren't going to answer the question, so I was forced to go
>look for myself. Ironically, I found it at Media Matters. While they try to
>trash Limbaugh for his 'editing' they show quite obviously why he did that
>edit. The soldier who called had a second question about finding WMDs which
>was discussed briefly. Rush concluded that discussion with: "What, what's more
>important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working.
>And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling
>out of there, which means that success on the part of you and, and your
>colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them."
>
> That's where the edit ends. Rush remarks about how frustrating it is, says
>goodbye to the caller, then says "here is a "Morning Update" that we did
>recently talking about fake soldiers."
>
> Only the most transparent, duplicitous pinheads would try to pretend that
>he had "moved on" from the discussion of 'phony soldiers' and now wanted to
>talk about 'fake soldiers.'
Who said anything about the phrase "fake soldiers".
He edited the transcriped, lied about what the revised transcript
showed, and got caught.
Now show a little self-respect and stop carrying his water, especially
since he's doing it, as you right wing morons often to, to trash US
troops for having the "wrong" politics.
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
Steve
As to be expected, Milt imagines that undocumented data needs to
refuted in order to be dispensed with... but then, just about
everything Milt posts is undocumented and comes from his gut feelings.
--
Any doubt that Milt Shook is a moron is erased by the following.
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&
"States cannot amend the Constitution, you clod. Congress can. The states
get to ratify it or not. But they have to ratify what they're given."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=385570ab.9710819%40news.earthlink.net
"States CAN'T amend the Constitution.
They can call for a convention, and they can ratify what the
convention produces. They cannot amend the Constitution."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
"I'm at a loss as to why you think increasing the
necessary collateral, while not decreasing the
value of the loan, is not a net loss."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/eca4b4662ef2cc82?hl=en&
"I was hit by buckshot by accident once when I was a kid. I
have a scar to show for it. But no matter where it would have hit me,
it wouldn't have killed me, because I was running away from it."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=383b35e7.10549606%40news.earthlink.net
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
"The [law] doesn't "allow" any behavior, you fucking idiot."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
If you're not breaking the law, a cop technically cannot arrest you. Is that because the law "allows" the behavior, or is it because the law doesn't "allow" him to arrest you.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0408091751.520dc5da%40posting.google.com
"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around here and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
"I just pinged your sorry ass and found three open ports, as well."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407231847.76c7fc4e%40posting.google.com
"When you're margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset. If
you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 28,2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
&
Steve
He got fired for shabby reporting...
>He was obviously set up;
Another totally ignorant, totally undocumented claim from
.Milt,.Shook's. over active imagination...
>people who had never even
>seen the documents close up were making claims like "the font is a
>font not found on typewriters back then," just hours after the piece
>broadcast.
That merely shows how inept Rather and his loons really were...
>The one thing this suit could do, however, will force a major
>investigation into how he was set up, and who was behind it. That's
>the beauty of the discovery process...
<LOL> conspiracies, conspiracies.... The lefties have a million of
'em...
>I predict he will depose Bush and Rove -- definitely Rove -- and that
>could prove very interesting...
Bush and Rove have absolutely nothing to say about this case..
--
["that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution] would only apply if I was taking the street
to court."
--.Milt.Shook..
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b07914d210a0a5b5?dmode=source&hl=en
Jim Alder
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Maybe he'll even IMPEACH Bush singlehandedly! ROTFLMAO!! Depose Rove! That's
not a prediction, that's wishful thinking based on nothing. You might as well
'predict' that Rather will dig up Nixon and use him for a character reference.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:07:47 -0000,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 6:16 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:20:54 -0500, Gary DeWaay
>
> >> <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
> >> >Steve's at stevencan...@lefties.suk.net wisdom:
>
> >> >> >Now, if only the press would start fact-checking these bozos...
>
> >> >> Like how Rather got fact-checked... yeah, that would be OK... too
> >> >> bad nobody fact checked media matters lies dishonesty about
> >> >> O'Reilly...
>
> >> >Rather's document was phony. The FACTS were never even bothered to be
> >> >disputed.
>
> >> >HTH.
>
> >> Why would anyone bother to dispute anything that was on a phony
> >> document?
>
> >Um, because it was untrue?
>
> refuted in order to be dispensed with... but then, just about
> --
You don't even know what this is about, do you?
Rather's story wasn't about whether the documents were phony. They
were about Bush's National Guard service. Even if a couple of the
documents turn out to be less than authentic, the facts of the case
are pretty much proven by other documents.
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote in news:1191161234.521780.227410
Wishful thinking? He'll pretty much have to. It's really a prediction
that doesn't take much to figure out.
Jim Alder
No, he hung up on the caller, then continued on the same subject
immediately. Even yu know that, which is why you refused to be clear about the
'editing.'
I did. And he did. YOU didn't because it was obvious to anyone that it was
the same subject.
> He edited the transcriped, lied about what the revised transcript
> showed, and got caught.
Attaboy. Lock your tiny brain on that "edited" business and ignore the
fact that it was edited without any reason that would indicate he was trying
to fool anyone. Forget the possibility that he has a whole crew of people
under him and that one of them might have deleted that non sequitur, not
knowing that Limbaugh was going to say "completely unedited" and some anal-
obsessive like you was going to be listening.
> Now show a little self-respect and stop carrying his water, especially
> since he's doing it, as you right wing morons often to, to trash US
> troops for having the "wrong" politics.
When I lose any self respect, I'll stop kicking your ass here and let you
lie with mindless aplomb.
>> You're a lying sack of shit, Zeppy the Pinhead.
Steve
If there were any facts in other documents hat supported their story,
they would've used them instead of the phony documents, you hapless
moron... there are no supporting facts... much like all the
nonsense you post....
"When you're margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset. If
you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
...and Milt hasn't yet explained how a $10,000 margin call will result
in a $20,000 loss, presumably above and beyond whatever loss of market
value in stock precipitated the margin call....
Jim Alder
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
No, ,they're not. That is WHY the Left had to trump up fake documents.
Jim Alder
news:1191188173.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Karl Rove will have absolutely nothing to do with this lawsuit. That is MY
prediction.
Steve
wrote:
>milt....@gmail.com wrote in
milt likes to pretend that he knows about law.. but he blew that away
when he claimed that he could have a First Amendment suit against a
private party...
"I've explained it to you before; it's because the state is obligated
to protect your First Amendment rights, even from private parties. "
-- Milt Shook May 16 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/49833dff86ea3447
"I think the government has a responsibility to protect your First
Amendment rights when a private party tries to prevent you from
exercising them, yes."
-- Milt Shook 15 May 2004
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0405171017.79b33efa%40posting.google.com
"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the
Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane.
[...] The government works in a lot of ways. If someone does
something to violate your right to free speech -- REALLY violate it,
not just cancel a contract or refuse to spend money to put out your
album, you take them to court."
-- Milt Shook May 15 2004
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
He appears to have a vivid fantasy life full of things he thinks he knows
about.
> but he blew that away
> when he claimed that he could have a First Amendment suit against a
> private party...
It's been my observation that you can sue most anyone for most anything.
But not that.
> "I've explained it to you before; it's because the state is obligated
> to protect your First Amendment rights, even from private parties. "
> -- Milt Shook May 16 2004
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/49833dff86ea3447
>
>
>
> "I think the government has a responsibility to protect your First
> Amendment rights when a private party tries to prevent you from
> exercising them, yes."
> -- Milt Shook 15 May 2004
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0405171017.79b33efa%
40posting.google.com
>
>
>
> "I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the
> Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane.
> [...] The government works in a lot of ways. If someone does
> something to violate your right to free speech -- REALLY violate it,
> not just cancel a contract or refuse to spend money to put out your
> album, you take them to court."
> -- Milt Shook May 15 2004
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
--
milt....@gmail.com
WTF are you on about? You think that those documents were the ONLY
documents in existence to prove that George Bush sat out his National
Guard service?
You're not too bright, are you?
The FACT is, if I fault Rather for anything, it's running a story into
the ground. There was already lots of proof that Bush faked his Guard
service; this story was piling on. Totally unnecessary, in reality...
3800 Dead
wrote:
Now you're just plain lying, Jimmy.
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
Jim Alder
Fuck you, you pathetic little shit! It's as plain as day to anyone smart
enough to outthink a squirrel in the fast lane. Which - obviously - eliminates
you.
George Grapman
Limbaugh referred to "phony soldiers"
He then claimed he was only talking about one soldier.
Transcripts and audio posted hear clearly have him saying "soldiers"
The dittoheads in denial still think he was speaking about one soldier.
Jim Alder
@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
> The facts:
George Grapman has so decreed! These are the facts, and there are no other
facts and there is no other discussion. Nothing else is relevant because
nothing else will fit in his tiny nutshell of a brain.
> Limbaugh referred to "phony soldiers"
Because the caller used the plural;
LIMBAUGH: I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real
soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and
talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers.
> He then claimed he was only talking about one soldier.
Perhaps two minutes after the above, he said;
"here is a "Morning Update" that we did recently talking about fake
soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have
their celebrities. One of them was Jesse MacBeth."
"One of them is." Which is to say, there are others.
> Transcripts and audio posted hear clearly have him saying "soldiers"
LIMBAUGH: I was not talking, as Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-war
movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that "phony soldier"
comment, Jesse MacBeth.
Which is NOT to say that he is the only such phony soldier the Left has
brought out of nowhere to criticize the war effort.
> The dittoheads in denial still think he was speaking about one soldier.
The Democretins with their legions of proven liars in their midst are so
determined to find liars among the Right that they clamp down on any
discrepancy no matter how minute, and hold on like the yappy little dogs they
are. No logic will dislodge them, no explanation will dissuade them.
Steve
Milt, Milt, like I said, f there were any facts in other documents hat
supported their story, they would've used them instead of the phony
documents...
>You're not too bright, are you?
>
>The FACT is, if I fault Rather for anything, it's running a story into
>the ground. There was already lots of proof that Bush faked his Guard
>service; this story was piling on. Totally unnecessary, in reality...
>
Nobody cares what a moron like you would fault him for, Milt....
Kurt Nicklas
> Bryan David Jamieson (3800 Dead) wrote innews:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>
> > Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
>
> That's nice.
This pathetic attempt to smear Limbaugh deserves short comments like
that, Bert.
Thanks.
Mitchell Holman
news:1191235339.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
No one needs to smear Limbaugh.
He does that well enough all by himself............;)
Rush Limbaugh chided for soldier remark
Palm Beach Daily News
September 29, 2007
Palm Beach resident Rush Limbaugh found himself at the
center of a political tempest after he was accused of
using the term "phony soldiers" to describe members of
the military who oppose the Iraq war.
Limbaugh addressed the controversy Friday during his radio
broadcast, saying he was referring to Jesse MacBeth, who
washed out of the Army during basic training but claimed to
have been an Army Ranger who witnessed and participated in
military atrocities in Iraq.
MacBeth was sentenced to five months in jail and three years
probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs
claim and his Army discharge record.
Limbaugh said he "was not talking ... about the anti-war
movement generally. I was talking about one soldier, with
that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth."
However, he never mentioned MacBeth during the disputed exchange
and questioned the truthfulness of an earlier caller who said he
was an anti-war, Republican former soldier.
Several local political leaders contacted Friday afternoon had
not directly heard Limbaugh's broadcasts or studied the Web site
reports. But they generally issued careful thoughts and comments.
Wahid Mahmood, chairman of the Democratic Party of Palm Beach
County, said he didn't care for the use of the word "phony,"
regardless of the target or its context.
"We should not call him a 'phony,' " he said of MacBeth. "We are
human beings, all of us. It's a very sensitive issue. We should
all be very thoughtful in our comments, our words."
Mahmood's political counterpart, Sid Dinerstein — chairman of the
Republican Party of Palm Beach County — declined to comment.
State Rep. Carl Domino, R-Jupiter, said he had not heard the
broadcasts, but had begun to hear reports of the latest political
media incident.
"I went to war, and I fought for the right to talk," Domino said.
"You go to fight for those rights, the right of freedom of speech."
State Rep. Mary Brandenburg, D-West Palm Beach, said she had not
heard any of the comments but reviewed transcripts after the flap
began.
"All of our soldiers are real soldiers," she said. "My guess is that
a lot of our real American soldiers think that Rush Limbaugh is a
real idiot, as I do."
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/rush0929.html
3800 Dead
And yet, when all is said and done, Limbaugh did refer to soldiers who
expressed doubts about the occupation as "phony soldiers". All your
little monkey dancing can't get around that, and once again, you show
your moral and ethical bankrupcy.
>
>Thanks.
sfgeorge
> George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote in news:7BZLi.2995$yc5.1842
Alder even reposts the plural "soldiers" while defending LImbaugh.
When a judge dismissed some of the charges against DeLay Limbaugh
said that the Washington Post "barely" mentioned it. After I posted
that story where the dismissal was in the first paragraph Alder
replied by agreeing with the use of barely.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:55:55 -0000,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 6:13 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> supported their story, they would've used them instead of the phony
> documents...
Okay, let's start with the fact that no one has proven the documents
"phony." No one has been able to prove or disprove their authenticity.
The fault -- and why Rather probably won't win this case -- is with
the fact that they should have been able to authenticate the documents
before using them. But the FACTS underlying the basic story are well-
documented, in fact, and had been for quite some time before Rather's
piece.
>
> >You're not too bright, are you?
>
> >The FACT is, if I fault Rather for anything, it's running a story into
> >the ground. There was already lots of proof that Bush faked his Guard
> >service; this story was piling on. Totally unnecessary, in reality...
>
> Nobody cares what a moron like you would fault him for,Milt....
Wow. I mean... you don't even pretend to understand the concept of
irony, do you?
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> Alder even reposts the plural "soldiers" while defending LImbaugh.
That's what he said, nincompoop. Unlike you, I have no problem with the
truth - the whole truth, that is.
> When a judge dismissed some of the charges against DeLay Limbaugh
> said that the Washington Post "barely" mentioned it. After I posted
> that story where the dismissal was in the first paragraph Alder
> replied by agreeing with the use of barely.
Oh, brother.
Steve
Of course they have, Milt.... it' been shown that it's impossible that
these documents were created on any machine available in the 1970s,
but if that's going to be Rather's story, he's going to fall even
further when he can't produce any machine from that era that could
have done it...
>The fault -- and why Rather probably won't win this case -- is with
>the fact that they should have been able to authenticate the documents
>before using them. But the FACTS underlying the basic story are well-
>documented, in fact, and had been for quite some time before Rather's
>piece.
Naw, sorry, Milt.
>> >You're not too bright, are you?
>>
>> >The FACT is, if I fault Rather for anything, it's running a story into
>> >the ground. There was already lots of proof that Bush faked his Guard
>> >service; this story was piling on. Totally unnecessary, in reality...
>>
>> Nobody cares what a moron like you would fault him for,Milt....
>
>Wow. I mean... you don't even pretend to understand the concept of
>irony, do you?
Below is some fine irony, Milt..
One day Milt tried to use a sock puppet in usenet, but failed to
realize that the IP address didn't change..
Header lines from "Biff's post:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.55.111.77
X-Complaints-To: a...@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
Header lines from Milt Shook's post:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.55.111.77
X-Complaints-To: a...@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
So Milt tried to lie his way out of it by claiming:
"If you knew anything about Comcast, you'd
know that everyone who posts from the same geographical area will have
the same IP address, unless they pay twice as much."
--Milt.Shook.
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/1c0c985824dcbbd8?hl=en&
Then, when told that wasn't possible, he claimed that some neighbors
were on the internet through his wireless router......
So if you wonder how many people Milt claims to have had the same IP
as himself because they use his wireless router, here's the answer(s)
*** * here it's one** **
"I only said ONE PERSON used my router."
--Milt.Shook.. Sept 30, 2007
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1c03731874eacce6?
*** * here it's two ** **
"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around
here and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt Shook.
.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
*** * here it's three ** **
"They had the same IP as me because they were using my
wireless router! One guy, Matt, was using it with my permission. the
other two that I knew of weren't. I didn't care, because it didn't
seem to be slowing things down much."
--.Milt.Shook... 18 May 2007
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f2421f864f34c5d1?
*** * and here it's four ** **
Canyon asked: "so tell us again about how many different people
"sport" the same IP as you, Milt?"
.
Milt Shook replied: "Four confirmed. Why?"
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/7b5fa5eb0ff119ad?hl=en&
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Sort of like no one signed the Constitution Miltt?
>No one has been able to prove or disprove their authenticity.
>The fault -- and why Rather probably won't win this case -- is with
>the fact that they should have been able to authenticate the documents
>before using them.
And they couldn't...that's why they didn't try.
>But the FACTS underlying the basic story are well-
>documented, in fact, and had been for quite some time before Rather's
>piece.
Then why use a forged document MMiltt?
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
Which is in itself ironic...
Brian Carey
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191256250.2...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Milt,Milt, like I said, f there were any facts in other documents hat
>> supported their story, they would've used them instead of the phony
>> documents...
>
> Okay, let's start with the fact that no one has proven the documents
> "phony."
Yeah. It's just a coincidence that the exact format of the document, down
to the margines, typeset, and font, can be reproduced with software that
wasn't invented until some 30 years after the documents were supposedly
written.
Steve
Milt has to snip all the irony...
So once again, how many people have had the same IP as you used to
have even though your IP address hadn't changed for five years?
"I also figured out that many people in my area share the same IP
address. Not at the same time, of course, as I explained before. But
every time I reboot my modem, I'm assigned a new IP address, from a
different connection point, and someone else will be assigned the IP
address later."
--Milt.Shook. referencing what happened in 2004..
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/87c3324dd22d4c72
"Funny; my IP hasn't changed in the almost five years, even when I
moved
into a house."
--Milt.Shook.. Jun 14 2006
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e773f8f44066cd9e?
Steve
...and also nobody can come up with a machine of that era that can do
it, or a verifiable document from that era that has all those
features...
Brian Carey
"Steve" <steven...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
news:0fm2g3h5rd6i2u3h3...@4ax.com...
...but no one has proven that the documents are phony. :)
Kurt Nicklas
> Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:1191235339.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Sep 28, 4:32 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> Bryan David Jamieson (3800 Dead) wrote
> >> innews:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>
> >> > Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
>
> >> That's nice.
>
> > This pathetic attempt to smear Limbaugh deserves short comments like
> > that, Bert.
>
> No one needs to smear Limbaugh.
>
> He does that well enough all by himself............;)
{Yawn}
Another dumb cluck (Michelle Hollowman) who listens to what the
press says about Limbaugh rather than what Limbaugh actually says.
Why do you lie so much, cracker?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responding to a thread entitled 'Censure Murtha!':
"Censorship is all that braindead conservatives ...
understands."
-------------Mitchel Holmann, Sep 20, 2007. {Thereby
proving he doesn't know the difference between
'to censure' and 'to censor'.
Steve
<car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve" <steven...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
>news:0fm2g3h5rd6i2u3h3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:23:18 -0400, "Brian Carey"
>> <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1191256250.2...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Milt,Milt, like I said, f there were any facts in other documents hat
>>>>> supported their story, they would've used them instead of the phony
>>>>> documents...
>>>>
>>>> Okay, let's start with the fact that no one has proven the documents
>>>> "phony."
>>>
>>>Yeah. It's just a coincidence that the exact format of the document, down
>>>to the margines, typeset, and font, can be reproduced with software that
>>>wasn't invented until some 30 years after the documents were supposedly
>>>written.
>>>
>>
>> ...and also nobody can come up with a machine of that era that can do
>> it, or a verifiable document from that era that has all those
>> features...
>
>...but no one has proven that the documents are phony. :)
>
It's going to be fun... Rather and CBS are both in a no win
situation...
Mitchell Holman
> On Oct 1, 8:30 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> innews:1191235339.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Sep 28, 4:32 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >> Bryan David Jamieson (3800 Dead) wrote
>> >> innews:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> > Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
>>
>> >> That's nice.
>>
>> > This pathetic attempt to smear Limbaugh deserves short comments like
>> > that, Bert.
>>
>> No one needs to smear Limbaugh.
>>
>> He does that well enough all by himself............;)
>
> {Yawn}
>
> Another dumb cluck (Michelle Hollowman) who listens to what the
> press says about Limbaugh rather than what Limbaugh actually says.
>
The press release you deleted because it proves you
wrong is from Rush's hometown paper, duffus. You think
they would be bashing their most famous resident if he
didn't say something toweringly stupid?
Facts one, NicklASS zero.
Kurt Nicklas
> Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:1191274825....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 8:30 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >> Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >> innews:1191235339.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Sep 28, 4:32 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> >> Bryan David Jamieson (3800 Dead) wrote
> >> >> innews:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >> > Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
>
> >> >> That's nice.
>
> >> > This pathetic attempt to smear Limbaugh deserves short comments like
> >> > that, Bert.
>
> >> No one needs to smear Limbaugh.
>
> >> He does that well enough all by himself............;)
>
> > {Yawn}
>
> > Another dumb cluck (Michelle Hollowman) who listens to what the
> > press says about Limbaugh rather than what Limbaugh actually says.
>
> The press release you deleted because it proves you
> wrong is from Rush's hometown paper, duffus.
Rush is from Missouri, cracker. If you weren't the most ignorant
individual west of the Pecos you'd know that.....
>You think
> they would be bashing their most famous resident if he
> didn't say something toweringly stupid?
Are you asking me if Palm Beach would dare to say something about
Rush, FlyBoy?
What a pathetic joke you are,Michelle!
3806 Dead
<nick...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Oct 1, 6:30 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:1191274825....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 1, 8:30 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> >> Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> >> innews:1191235339.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Sep 28, 4:32 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Bryan David Jamieson (3800 Dead) wrote
>> >> >> innews:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> >> > Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
>>
>> >> >> That's nice.
>>
>> >> > This pathetic attempt to smear Limbaugh deserves short comments like
>> >> > that, Bert.
>>
>> >> No one needs to smear Limbaugh.
>>
>> >> He does that well enough all by himself............;)
>>
>> > {Yawn}
>>
>> > Another dumb cluck (Michelle Hollowman) who listens to what the
>> > press says about Limbaugh rather than what Limbaugh actually says.
>>
>> The press release you deleted because it proves you
>> wrong is from Rush's hometown paper, duffus.
>
>Rush is from Missouri, cracker. If you weren't the most ignorant
>individual west of the Pecos you'd know that.....
You mean Rush still lives in Pig Shit Puddle, Missouri, and not in
Palm Springs?
>
>>You think
>> they would be bashing their most famous resident if he
>> didn't say something toweringly stupid?
>
>Are you asking me if Palm Beach would dare to say something about
>Rush, FlyBoy?
>
>What a pathetic joke you are,Michelle!
>
>----------------------------------------
>Responding to a thread entitled 'Censure Murtha!':
>"Censorship is all that braindead conservatives ...
>understands."
>-------------Mitchel Holmann, Sep 20, 2007. {Thereby
>proving he doesn't know the difference between
>'to censure' and 'to censor'
Mitchell Holman
news:je93g31buge7ade99...@4ax.com:
If NickLASS knew what he was talking about
he wouldn't keep embarrassing himself this way.
It's the only attention he gets in his lonely
pathetic life, it seems...............
Kurt Nicklas
> B. David Jamieson<zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote innews:je93g31buge7ade99...@4ax.com:
>
>
> > On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:10:12 -0700, Kurt Nicklas
> > <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 1, 6:30 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >>> Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >>> > On Oct 1, 8:30 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >>> >> innews:1191235339.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> >> > On Sep 28, 4:32 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> Bryan David Jamieson (3800 Dead) wrote
> >>> >> >> innews:rc3qf3ldfugdqq0a8...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> >> >> > Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
>
> >>> >> >> That's nice.
>
> >>> >> > This pathetic attempt to smear Limbaugh deserves short comments
> >>> >> > like that, Bert.
>
> >>> >> No one needs to smear Limbaugh.
>
> >>> >> He does that well enough all by himself............;)
>
> >>> > {Yawn}
>
> >>> > Another dumb cluck (Michelle Hollowman) who listens to what the
> >>> > press says about Limbaugh rather than what Limbaugh actually says.
>
> >>> The press release you deleted because it proves you
> >>> wrong is from Rush's hometown paper, duffus.
>
> >>Rush is from Missouri, cracker. If you weren't the most ignorant
> >>individual west of the Pecos you'd know that.....
>
> > You mean Rush still lives in Pig Shit Puddle, Missouri, and not in
> > Palm Springs?
>
> If NickLASS knew what he was talking about
> he wouldn't keep embarrassing himself this way.
LOL
So tell us, HOLLOWMAN. Just what IS Rush's "hometown"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
Make us laugh at you yet again!
> It's the only attention he gets in his lonely
> pathetic life, it seems...............
Then tell us how those Florida liberals in P.S. feel about him, okay?
Suppose they're still pissed that they couldn't steal the 2000
election for
Algore?
------------------------------
"Reagan said communism was dead. Ergo, there are no
more communist countries."
--------------- Mtchell Hoolman, Jun 4, 2007
Mitchell Holman
The town where he has his home. No Duh.
As in Palm Springs, as per the article you
keep deleting because it proves you wrong, like
the evasive little weenie that you are.
So what else is new?
Michell Holman
"ALL global warming advocates are funded by the government-
university complex."
Kurt Nicklass, 06/18/07. For a sampling of the corporations
which are advocating a response to global warming go to:
http://www.net.org/warming/docs/Business_Leadership_Quotes.pdf
Kurt Nicklas
Don't know the meaning of hometown, HOLLOWman? Silly you.
Here's the wikipedia link you keep deleting. Pay particular attention
to where he grew up, okay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
> As in Palm Springs, as per the article you
> keep deleting because it proves you wrong,
Actually I only deleted it once and for good reason: it has no more
significance than all the other silly lies being printed and
distributed
by liars like you, FlyBoy.
> like
> the evasive little weenie that you are.
Oh the irony! You're the cracker who starts throwing straw the minute
he thinks he's in trouble.
Well, don't you?
> So what else is new?
> Michell Holman
> "ALL global warming advocates are funded by the government-
> university complex."
> Kurt Nicklass, 06/18/07. For a sampling of the corporations
> which are advocating a response to global warming go to:http://www.net.org/warming/docs/Business_Leadership_Quotes.pdf
LOL
Exactly! Government taxes = government funding, HOLLOWman.
Did you think this refutes my previous statement?
Silly you! Why do you continue to embarrass yourself in this way?
------------------------------------------------------
" Castro cannot be a communist because Reagan said
communism was dead and Reagan was never wrong, right? "
---------- Mitchel Hollman, May 30, 2007
LarsensAttack
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
Pathetic non-sequitur while fatboy with his
special-interest sponsored platform has never served
a day in harms way in his life, and will run as fast
as he can to catch a Lear jet out of here for Israel
the moment it looks like he might have to!
--
B3
==
The very wealthy HATE Democracy.
Vote accordingly in '08.
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Pelosi POWERLESS - Just another granny, not really Speaker.
Voters await 3rd party; any party will do!
Voters await any other POTUS candidate to save them from
the current selection....
milt....@gmail.com
> "Steve" <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0fm2g3h5rd6i2u3h3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:23:18 -0400, "Brian Carey"
> > <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>news:1191256250.2...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Milt,Milt, like I said, f there were any facts in other documents hat
> >>>> supported their story, they would've used them instead of the phony
> >>>> documents...
>
> >>> Okay, let's start with the fact that no one has proven the documents
> >>> "phony."
>
> >>Yeah. It's just a coincidence that the exact format of the document, down
> >>to the margines, typeset, and font, can be reproduced with software that
> >>wasn't invented until some 30 years after the documents were supposedly
> >>written.
>
> > ...and also nobody can come up with a machine of that era that can do
> > it, or a verifiable document from that era that has all those
> > features...
>
> ...but no one has proven that the documents are phony. :)
No, no one has proven that the documents are authentic. There is a
difference.
Steve
Perhaps we should give Shook permission to believe that the documents
are not phony. I think that's what he's looking for.
Kurt Nicklas
So here is how liberals avoid debate on the war for those keeping
score:
* You've Never Served: You're a chickenhawk so they ignore the merits
of your argument.
* You Did Serve: You're still a chickenhawk for not serving now so
they ignore the merits of your argument.
* You Are Serving: It's illegal for you to speak about the war so
they
ignore the merits of your argument.
LarsensAttack
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
The only point of interest to me is that this fat clown
has never served yet is arrogant enough to comment
on the bravery or other attributes of those that
have.
Brian Carey
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191331525.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:23:18 -0400, "Brian Carey"
>> > <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >><milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1191256250.2...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>> Milt,Milt, like I said, f there were any facts in other documents
>> >>>> hat
>> >>>> supported their story, they would've used them instead of the phony
>> >>>> documents...
>>
>> >>> Okay, let's start with the fact that no one has proven the documents
>> >>> "phony."
>>
>> >>Yeah. It's just a coincidence that the exact format of the document,
>> >>down
>> >>to the margines, typeset, and font, can be reproduced with software
>> >>that
>> >>wasn't invented until some 30 years after the documents were supposedly
>> >>written.
>>
>> > ...and also nobody can come up with a machine of that era that can do
>> > it, or a verifiable document from that era that has all those
>> > features...
>>
>> ...but no one has proven that the documents are phony. :)
>
> No, no one has proven that the documents are authentic. There is a
> difference.
Look at the top of the thread, Milt. You're the one who made the absurd
claim that no one proved that the documents are "phony."
Kurt Nicklas
Actually, in this instance he was commenting on the mendacity of phony
soldiers like Jesse Macbeth and those Leftwingers who embrace him and
his ilk.
But do continue the lies. It's so typical of the Left in these times.
nob...@nowhere.com
<car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/34cd7e7f5dd74ea5?dmode=source
"Okay, let's start with the fact that no one has proven the documents
"phony."
Look for Miltie to:
a) squirm
b) deflect
c) run away
>
George Grapman
The transcripts and audio which have repeatedly been posted here show
Limbaugh talking about "phony soldiers" and saying real soldiers wanted
to be in Iraq. It was only on the following day after the furor started
that he ever mentioned Macbeth.
milt....@gmail.com
> >claim that no one proved that the documents are "phony."
>
>
> "Okay, let's start with the fact that no one has proven the documents
> "phony."
>
> Look for Miltie to:
> a) squirm
> b) deflect
> c) run away
>
>
Despite the fact that you have never seen me do any of the three?
milt....@gmail.com
> claim that no one proved that the documents are "phony."
The documents have never been authenticated. They have also never been
proven to be phony. That means... are you ready?
No one knows for sure. A lot of people suspect that they're phony, but
NO ONE has EVER documented them as absolutely fake. There is a huge
difference between not authenticating documents and proving them
fake.
I know you think you know everything, but just like with the First
Amendment (and pretty much everything else), you don't.
milt....@gmail.com
OOps, sorry, Brian. That looked so much like Canyon that I thought I
was answering them. Forget the last part of that and forgive me. You
seem to know more about the First Amendment than Canyon and I owe you
at least that apology...
Brian Carey
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191372281.4...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> >>> Okay, let's start with the fact that no one has proven the
>>> >> >>> documents
>> >> >>> "phony."
>>
>> >> >>Yeah. It's just a coincidence that the exact format of the
>> >> >>document,
>> >> >>down
>> >> >>to the margines, typeset, and font, can be reproduced with software
>> >> >>that
>> >> >>wasn't invented until some 30 years after the documents were
>> >> >>supposedly
>> >> >>written.
>>
>> >> > ...and also nobody can come up with a machine of that era that can
>> >> > do
>> >> > it, or a verifiable document from that era that has all those
>> >> > features...
>>
>> >> ...but no one has proven that the documents are phony. :)
>>
>> > No, no one has proven that the documents are authentic. There is a
>> > difference.
>>
>> Look at the top of the thread,Milt. You're the one who made the absurd
>> claim that no one proved that the documents are "phony."
>
Actually just about everyone except for a few left-wing sycophants knows
that the documents were forged.
milt....@gmail.com
> <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No, Brian. A lot of people THINK they were forged, myself included.
But they have never been determined either way...
nob...@nowhere.com
You mean like this recent whopper Steve pointed out that you ran from:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/87c3324dd22d4c72?dmode=source
"I also figured out that many people in my area share the same IP
address. Not at the same time, of course, as I explained before. But
every time I reboot my modem, I'm assigned a new IP address, from a
different connection point, and someone else will be assigned the IP
address later. "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e773f8f44066cd9e?
"Funny; my IP hasn't changed in the almost five years, even when I
moved into a house. "
Can't say I've seen you address this one so it must be option "c".
Brian Carey
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191405387.8...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > No, no one has proven that the documents are authentic. There is a
>> >> > difference.
>>
>> >> Look at the top of the thread,Milt. You're the one who made the
>> >> absurd
>> >> claim that no one proved that the documents are "phony."
>>
>> > No one knows for sure.
>>
>> Actually just about everyone except for a few left-wing sycophants knows
>> that the documents were forged.
>
> No, Brian. A lot of people THINK they were forged, myself included.
Well there's hope for you then.
Tazmanian Devil
<BayonetVariation.net> wrote:
Really? Then pray tell when did YOU serve and what unit? I find it
highly amusing that you make this statement and yet do not say what
your military history is. In reality that makes you no better then the
guy you are trying to attack. in short, that makes you a hypocrit
George Grapman
others are draft dodgers.
George Grapman
firm never heard of him.
Taz also thins that California stopped counting ballots in 2000 when
Gore's lead exceeded the number of uncounted ballots leading to his
claim that Bush might have won the popular vote.
3839 Dead
wrote:
>3800 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>> 3800 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In reference to: "Rush Limbaugh's assertion that troops who want to
>>>>>>> withdraw from Iraq are 'phony soldiers'." (which is, as stated in the
>>>>>>> post you're responding to, NOT what he said)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The President believes that if you are serving in the
>>>>>>>> military that you have the rights that every American has which is
>you're
>>>>>>>> free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there are
>some
>>>>>>>> that oppose the war, and that's okay."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think he meant that it was okay to lie, too? To represent
>>>>>>> yourself as a war veteran when you weren't? To claim medals you never
>>>>>>> received? That's the kind of phony soldiers they were talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, please. Limpballs clearly meant soldiers who opposed the
>occupation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, because Democratunderground dot com told you that's what he
>clearly
>>>>>meant? Limbaugh has never insulted the military in ANY way that I have
>ever
>>>>>heard of, let alone so blatantly.
>>>>
>>>> No, the transcript -- the REAL transcript -- make it clear what he meant.
>>>
>>> Which one's the REAL one, Pinhead? What incriminating conversation was
>left
>>> out?
>>
>> The minute and a quarter of conversation between the "phony soldiers"
>> remark, and the individual Limbaugh later claimed he was speaking of.
>
> Jesse Macbeth? He wasn't on the show. And Limbaugh talked about him
>earlier. And I asked you what incriminating conversation was left out.
Now you're just plain lying, Alderberry Whine. MacBeth got mentioned
for the first time 1:15 after the "phoney soldiers" remark, and when
Rush released his doctored xscript, it omitted that 1:15 in order to
make it appear that he was talking about MacBeth when he mentioned
phoney solders. Unfortunately for his flatulent ass, others were
taping, as well.
>
>> Incidently, most individuals only make up one soldier, and not
>> "soldiers". Just a little grammar tip for conservatism's leading
>> voice.
>
> The caller spoke of "real soldiers" and it's not like Macbeth is a unique
>case.
Now, apparently any soldier who disagrees with Rush qualifies.
>
>>>> We've seen this before. He steps over a line, and rather than just
>>>> apologizing, he tries to lie and cover up.
>>>
>>> Of course you've seen it before, Pinhead, but that doesn't mean it
>actually
>>> happened before.
>>
>> Actually, it has. The Chelsea incident was the first, and expose the
>> true nature of the American right.
>
> I almost typed "I can't believe" but of course it's no real surprise that
>you're still milking that lie 18 years later. It does come as a bit of a shock
>that you think of it as personifying the entire conservative side of politics.
>But then, pinheads aren't known for their expansive thinking.
>
>>>> He's a coward, like most bullies.
>>>
>>> Well, you Liberals can be SO terrifying.
>>>
>>>> So why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
>>>
>>> Because it's so entertaining watching chickenshit losers like you try to
>>> bring down people like Limbaugh and Bush.
>>
>> Why are you fronting for that type of cowardice?
>
> Why are you repeating yourself? I just answered you.
>
>>>>>> This is sillier and more pathetic than the "fooled by cue cards" think
>>>>>> when he insulted a 12 year old girl.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you're still milking that lie after 18 years is what's really
>>>>> pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> That's when I lost all respect for the American far right. You're
>>>> cowards, the lot of you.
>>>
>>> Bite my lily white ass, you hatemongering moron.
>>
>> Don't you have any self-respect left?
>
> I haven't killfiled you yet, so obviously not.
Phlip
>>earlier. And I asked you what incriminating conversation was left out.
>
> Now you're just plain lying, Alderberry Whine. MacBeth got mentioned
> for the first time 1:15 after the "phoney soldiers" remark, and when
> Rush released his doctored xscript, it omitted that 1:15 in order to
> make it appear that he was talking about MacBeth when he mentioned
> phoney solders. Unfortunately for his flatulent ass, others were
> taping, as well.
In my market there's an average Classic Rock radio station, KGB. They play
the standard vinyl-era playlist, including plenty of war protest songs.
And one morning during drive time, they actually had an interview with
someone who recited exactly this doctored version. The DJ fell for it, hook
line and sinker.
Demagogery lives on!
--
Phlip
Jim Alder
news:5ktci35p58fcln2nc...@4ax.com:
Why are you responding to a post I made in September, Pinhead? Are you
lonesome? Do you really think I'm going to explain every detail of this simple
leftist lie to you all over again? "Earlier" Pinhead. I believe it was the day
before.
--
President Bush was so buoyed by the warm reception he was given in Albania
that he immediately gave all 3 million Albanians American citizenship,
provided they learn Spanish. - Ann Coulter
Shrikeback
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:2gJUi.2798$Nz7....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Actually, he is.