Amazing how
James Schrumpf
unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
let near a leadership position.
The American electorate is paying attention.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Play like your couch is on fire!
Jeffrey Davis
> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
> let near a leadership position.
>
> The American electorate is paying attention.
>
Dave Reid
news:Xns987CBF5268D16ja...@216.196.97.142:
> nearly-bribe-taking
"Nearly-bribe-taking"?
Doesn't that mean that he didn't take a bribe? Isn't that what is
suppossed to happen?
dave
mianderson
James Schrumpf wrote:
> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
> let near a leadership position.
>
> The American electorate is paying attention.
the american people aren't paying attention. A few news junkies might
be. Hardcore democrats like myself are paying a little bit of
attention because this is just one small battle(of many in the future)
between progressives and DLC types, and even then the lines are blurred
because you have some dlc types supporting murtha and some kos-types
supporting hoyer....
95% of the american electorate wouldn't even have a clue what state
Stenny hoyer is from(excluding maryland I guess)
Ralph Kennedy
> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
> let near a leadership position.
If you'd bother to dig a bit deeper than
your superficial parroting of wingnut blog
talking points you just read today, you'd know
that you've got that ass backwards.
> The American electorate is paying attention.
Except for Mr. Schrupmf.
--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ken...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
hoover
"James Schrumpf" <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in message
news:Xns987CBF5268D16ja...@216.196.97.142...
wood...@cableone.net
Is this like the "If I told you that you had a beautiful body, would
you hold it against me?" question?
Ick.
..."I mean what I say and unlike Dylan I know what I am talking about."
Charles Beauchamp, 22 Oct 06
wood...@cableone.net
>Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
>let near a leadership position.
What precisely does "nearly-bribe-taking" mean, anyway?
The Grand Beckoning
<jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
>let near a leadership position.
But it's true.
The Grand Beckoning
Kennedy) wrote:
>James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> writes:
>> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
>> let near a leadership position.
>
> If you'd bother to dig a bit deeper than
>your superficial parroting of wingnut blog
>talking points you just read today, you'd know
>that you've got that ass backwards.
Once a crook, always a crook.
And his followup act to being a crook was to shame our troops in
battle to the cheers of leftwingnuts around the world.
Jeffrey Davis
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:49:21 -0500, Jeffrey Davis <jd_...@alltel.net> wrote:
>>> James Schrumpf wrote:
>
>>> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>>> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
>>> let near a leadership position.
>>> The American electorate is paying attention.
>
>> Good. D'ya think they're going to hold Charlie Keating against McCain?
>
> Is this like the "If I told you that you had a beautiful body, would
> you hold it against me?" question?
>
> Ick.
Good 'un.
James Schrumpf
Has someone been blowing McCain's horn lately?
James Schrumpf
The quote I read in the Washington Post went something like "I'm not
interested now. After we do business (?) for a while, maybe I'll be
interested."
That falls into "nearly-bribe-taking", I figure. It's not like he totally
rejected the idea as being beyond belief.
James Schrumpf
rage.
> James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> writes:
>> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>
> If you'd bother to dig a bit deeper than
> your superficial parroting of wingnut blog
> talking points you just read today, you'd know
> that you've got that ass backwards.
>
>> The American electorate is paying attention.
>
> Except for Mr. Schrupmf.
>
Kennedy, if you actually read anything beyond the graffiti on the
bathroom stalls at ASU I'd be shocked. Read and learn:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
"Targeting Murtha
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; 8:40 AM
How exactly did Jack Murtha become a symbol of sleazy behavior?
Nancy Pelosi pushes the guy for majority leader and suddenly--boom!--he's
on the front page of The Washington Post as being ethically challenged.
The New York Times mentions it as well.
And I'm wondering why, if this is a valid news story--the peg is some
watchdog groups criticizing the Pennsylvania congressman on the eve of
the House leadership vote--I didn't get to read about it earlier.
Instead, the stories were written in an "everyone knows this" tone.
I know, because I've been around for awhile, that Murtha was caught up in
Abscam, but that was 26 years ago, and besides, he was never charged.
(Though it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC
Nightly News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not interested--
at this point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be interested, maybe
I won't.")
The New Republic [says]: "There's ample reason to think that Americans
cast a negative vote last week--not so much for Democrats as against
Republicans. Over the next two years, voters will be watching to see
whether Democrats are up to the responsibility of governing, and doing so
with the national interest in mind."
* * *
I don't make this stuff up. I just post cites to it.
Dave Reid
> That falls into "nearly-bribe-taking", I figure. It's not like he
> totally rejected the idea as being beyond belief.
And yet, the Feds didn't charge him yet anything.
Sure sounds guilty to me.
dave
James Schrumpf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
"...it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC Nightly
News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not interested--at this
point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't."
* * *
See, that's how one does cites.
James Schrumpf
rage.
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:22 -0600, James Schrumpf
I'm not disputing that. However, how then is he a valid "leader" for the
"get out of Iraq now" movement then? Is that not leadership?
James Schrumpf
> James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in
Who said he was guilty of anything? Tell it to the Dems trashing him now.
Ralph Kennedy
> ken...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy):
> > James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> writes:
> >> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> >> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
> >> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
> >
> > If you'd bother to dig a bit deeper than
> > your superficial parroting of wingnut blog
> > talking points you just read today, you'd know
> > that you've got that ass backwards.
> >
> >> The American electorate is paying attention.
> >
> > Except for Mr. Schrupmf.
>
> Kennedy, if you actually read anything beyond the graffiti on the
> bathroom stalls at ASU I'd be shocked. Read and learn:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9ncv5
>
> "Targeting Murtha
Thanks for helping to make my point, Mr. Schrumpf,
to wit, that the Abscam "scandal" happened first, before
Murtha became a veteran speaking the truth about an
unpopular war.
Gawd but you're dumn.
The Grand Beckoning
<jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
>Quiet, The Grand Beckoning <t...@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> -- I'm transmitting
>rage.
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:22 -0600, James Schrumpf
>> <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
>>>Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>>>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>>>shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>>
>> But it's true.
>>
>
>I'm not disputing that. However, how then is he a valid "leader" for the
>"get out of Iraq now" movement then? Is that not leadership?
I don't think the Dims care. They would rather rub it in the face of
cons by raising Murtha's prestige.
They are shits.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
> let near a leadership position.
When was that? ABSCAM?
Today's influence peddling makes ABSCAM look like a joke.
--
Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including
Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Ralph Kennedy
> Quiet, wood...@cableone.net -- I'm transmitting rage.
> >>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:22 -0600, James Schrumpf
> >><jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
> >
> >>Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> >>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
> >>shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
> >
> > What precisely does "nearly-bribe-taking" mean, anyway?
>
> dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9ncv5
>
> "...it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC Nightly
> News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not interested--at this
> point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't."
>
> * * *
>
> See, that's how one does cites.
*guffaw* Too funny, Mr. Schrumpf.
So this old guy takes a young wife, but
they're having problems in the sex department,
so he goes to his rabbi for advice. The rabbi,
not wanting to hurt the old man's feelings by
suggesting he might be too old to be attractive
to his new young wife, blesses a towel and tells
the old man he must enlist the aid of a nice
young man to stand over him and his wife when
they're having sex, and wave the holy towel.
The wise rabbi figures that the old man's young
wife will be excited by the looks of the young man
and be able to have sex with her husband while
watching the young guy, but the old man will
just credit the holy towel, his feelings not scathed.
So the old man takes the towel from the rabbi
and recruits a nice handsome young man, who comes
home with him and stands over the couple waving the
towel as they try to have sex, but still no dice.
Finally the old man becomes impatient, and tells the
young man that he must not be waving the towel well
enough.
"Look," he says, "trade places for a minute,
and let me try waving the towel for a bit."
Well they trade places, and the old man
starts waving the towel like crazy, and sure
enough, the next thing you know, the young wife
is in the throes of multiple orgasms with the
young guy.
The old man jumps up and down and excitedly
exclaims, "See, young man, THAT'S how you wave
a towel!"
Trevor Zion Bauknight
James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
> >>Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> >>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
> >>shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
> >
> > What precisely does "nearly-bribe-taking" mean, anyway?
> >
> >
> > ..."I mean what I say and unlike Dylan I know what I am talking
> > about." Charles Beauchamp, 22 Oct 06
> >
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9ncv5
>
> "...it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC Nightly
> News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not interested--at this
> point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't."
>
> * * *
>
> See, that's how one does cites.
That's also how one does a political answer to an offer of an illegal
nature.
James Schrumpf
rage.
> James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> writes:
>> ken...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy):
>> > James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> writes:
>> >> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>> >> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>> >> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>> >
>> > If you'd bother to dig a bit deeper than
>> > your superficial parroting of wingnut blog
>> > talking points you just read today, you'd know
>> > that you've got that ass backwards.
>> >
>> >> The American electorate is paying attention.
>> >
>> > Except for Mr. Schrupmf.
>>
>> Kennedy, if you actually read anything beyond the graffiti on the
>> bathroom stalls at ASU I'd be shocked. Read and learn:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/9ncv5
>>
>> "Targeting Murtha
>
> Thanks for helping to make my point, Mr. Schrumpf,
> to wit, that the Abscam "scandal" happened first, before
> Murtha became a veteran speaking the truth about an
> unpopular war.
>
> Gawd but you're dumn.
>
Oh that's right, I forgot how the media kept bringing up his involvement
with Abscan while he was being lionized for "speaking truth to power."
Jeez, it was in all the papers every day how an unethical bastard like
that shouldn't be in a position of leadership in the anti-war effort.
I'll point out that the above is "sarcasm", given your constantly-proven
inablity to comprehend what you read while you're thinking ahead to your
next ad hominem attack.
James Schrumpf
transmitting rage.
> In article <Xns987CBF5268D16ja...@216.196.97.142>,
> James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
>
>> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>
> When was that? ABSCAM?
>
> Today's influence peddling makes ABSCAM look like a joke.
>
Well, I'm not the one raising the issue, either. The Dems are eating their
own.
James Schrumpf
rage.
> James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> writes:
>> Quiet, wood...@cableone.net -- I'm transmitting rage.
>> >>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:22 -0600, James Schrumpf
>> >><jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>> >>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>> >>shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>> >
>> > What precisely does "nearly-bribe-taking" mean, anyway?
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/9ncv5
>>
>> "...it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC
>> Nightly News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not
>> interested--at this point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be
>> interested, maybe I won't."
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> See, that's how one does cites.
>
[snip lack of response to quoted material]
As usual, ignoring the irrelevant leaves nothing from a Ralph Kennedy post.
James Schrumpf
transmitting rage.
> In article <Xns987CD39E4F231ja...@216.196.97.142>,
Oh? I thought a good and righteous "No," followed up by reporting the
guy to the police would be the right answer.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
> >> >>Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> >> >>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
> >> >>shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
> >> >
> >> > What precisely does "nearly-bribe-taking" mean, anyway?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ..."I mean what I say and unlike Dylan I know what I am talking
> >> > about." Charles Beauchamp, 22 Oct 06
> >> >
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> >> dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/9ncv5
> >>
> >> "...it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC
> >> Nightly News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not
> >> interested--at this point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be
> >> interested, maybe I won't."
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> See, that's how one does cites.
> >
> > That's also how one does a political answer to an offer of an illegal
> > nature.
> >
>
> Oh? I thought a good and righteous "No," followed up by reporting the
> guy to the police would be the right answer.
Sure, for a normal person. We're talking about politicians here, though.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
> >> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> >> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
> >> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
> >
> > When was that? ABSCAM?
> >
> > Today's influence peddling makes ABSCAM look like a joke.
> >
>
> Well, I'm not the one raising the issue, either. The Dems are eating their
> own.
Good.
Ralph Kennedy
> ken...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy):
> >> Quiet, wood...@cableone.net -- I'm transmitting rage.
> >> >>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:22 -0600, James Schrumpf
> >> >><jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> >> >>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
> >> >>shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
> >> >
> >> > What precisely does "nearly-bribe-taking" mean, anyway?
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> >> dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/9ncv5
> >>
> >> "...it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC
> >> Nightly News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not
> >> interested--at this point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be
> >> interested, maybe I won't."
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> See, that's how one does cites.
> >
>
> [snip lack of response to quoted material]
>
> As usual, ignoring the irrelevant leaves nothing from a Ralph Kennedy post.
Just keep on waving that towel, old man.
wood...@cableone.net
>>Quiet, wood...@cableone.net -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:22 -0600, James Schrumpf
>>>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>>>shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>> What precisely does "nearly-bribe-taking" mean, anyway?
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
>http://tinyurl.com/9ncv5
>"...it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC Nightly
>News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not interested--at this
>point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't."
>* * *
Ok, so he's a bit scummy in that he didn't outright just say "Stuff
it". But the fact remains that he didn't take the bribe.
>See, that's how one does cites.
Did I question your ability to do a cite somewhere?
wood...@cableone.net
>>Quiet, Jeffrey Davis <jd_...@alltel.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>> James Schrumpf wrote:
>>> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>>> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>>> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>>> The American electorate is paying attention.
>> Good. D'ya think they're going to hold Charlie Keating against McCain?
>Has someone been blowing McCain's horn lately?
<raising hand>
alic...@yahoo.com
Ralph Kennedy wrote:
> Thanks for helping to make my point, Mr. Schrumpf,
> to wit, that the Abscam "scandal" happened first, before
> Murtha became a veteran speaking the truth about an
> unpopular war.
>
> Gawd but you're dumn.
So when Murtha stated that US Marines had killed civilians
in Haditha "in cold blood" that's speaking the "truth"?
Of course I can undestand, considering your problems with
the truth, why you believe that lying about and smearing the
Marines is speaking "the truth" about the war.
-Tom Enright
Ralph Kennedy
But they weren't, Mr. Schrumpf.
> Jeez, it was in all the papers every day how an unethical bastard like
> that shouldn't be in a position of leadership in the anti-war effort.
But it wasn't, Mr. Schrumpf.
> I'll point out that the above is "sarcasm", given your constantly-proven
> inablity to comprehend what you read while you're thinking ahead to your
> next ad hominem attack.
You're a dumnass, Mr. Schrumpf.
alic...@yahoo.com
Dave Reid wrote:
The Ethics Committee lead counsel quit in protest when the Congress
cleared Murtha.
Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops, likes the pork
barrel
and has a dirty past.
-Tom Enright
> dave
Ralph Kennedy
> Ralph Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Thanks for helping to make my point, Mr. Schrumpf,
> > to wit, that the Abscam "scandal" happened first, before
> > Murtha became a veteran speaking the truth about an
> > unpopular war.
> >
> > Gawd but you're dumn.
>
> So when Murtha stated that US Marines had killed civilians
> in Haditha "in cold blood" that's speaking the "truth"?
"Evidence...supports accusations that Marines
deliberately shot the civilians, including
unarmed women and children..."
Murtha only reported what he'd been told by
Marine officials. And said he'd been told by
Marine officials.
> Of course I can undestand, considering your problems with
> the truth,
You're the group liar, Enright. And four
or five people have just spontaneously up and
confirmed it within the last day. I'm sure more
will pipe up if you ask them.
> why you believe that lying about and smearing the
> Marines is speaking "the truth" about the war.
He didn't lie and smear "the Marines," you
liar. He was talking about specific individuals.
Is accusing O.J. Simpson of murder "smearing
the blacks?" God, you're such a dishonest asshole.
And for the sake of argument, let's say that
Murtha was wrong about one thing out of the gazillion
things he's been talking about over the last year or
two, that means everything he said in the last two
years is lying slander?
Figures, since you have so much trouble
with the truth yourself.
Ralph Kennedy
>
> The Ethics Committee lead counsel quit in protest when the Congress
> cleared Murtha.
>
> Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops,
More Enright slander.
> likes the pork barrel
By that argument, the entire Republican Congress
of the last six years isn't fit to serve.
> and has a dirty past.
I thought you just said Murtha was cleared.
You claim Murtha slandered the marines involved
in the Haditha incident. Have they even been cleared?
Yet Murtha was cleared and you slander him.
Lousy hypocrite, right in the same exact
post.
Onyx_Hokie
[ Ralph Kennedy | ken...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu ]
[ <J8t6E...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu> ]
:alic...@yahoo.com writes:
:>
:> The Ethics Committee lead counsel quit in protest when the Congress
:> cleared Murtha.
:>
:> Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops,
:
: More Enright slander.
I dunno about the accuracy of Murtha's comments, but I'll tell you this
much... if someone wearing our uniform did in fact shoot unarmed
civilians in cold blood, they aren't "troops", they're criminals... and
they should have been shot on the spot by anyone on the scene who
actually had any honor.
So as for Enright's slander charge, it boils down rather simply: was
Murtha telling the truth in his description of the activities of those
in the uniform of the United States' armed forces? If so, screw them...
"slander", my ass.
Actually, as for Murtha himself.. if he truly believes he is telling the
truth based on what's been related to him, then he himself is likely
being attacked needlessly by those with agendas counter to anything
other than partisan political hackery; to Hell with them, as well.
--
"I hope you cherish this sweet way of life.
..and I hope you know that it comes with a price."
Darryl Worley, 'I Just Came Back From A War'
wood...@cableone.net
>Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops
You don't really understand what "slander" means, do you?
alic...@yahoo.com
Ralph Kennedy wrote:
> alic...@yahoo.com writes:
> > Ralph Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for helping to make my point, Mr. Schrumpf,
> > > to wit, that the Abscam "scandal" happened first, before
> > > Murtha became a veteran speaking the truth about an
> > > unpopular war.
> > >
> > > Gawd but you're dumn.
> > So when Murtha stated that US Marines had killed civilians
> > in Haditha "in cold blood" that's speaking the "truth"?
> http://msnbc.com/id/14150687
>
> "Evidence...supports accusations that Marines
> deliberately shot the civilians, including
> unarmed women and children..."
>
> Murtha only reported what he'd been told by
> Marine officials. And said he'd been told by
> Marine officials.
Your link doesn't work.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/
Murtha accused the marines of murdering civilians
in "cold blood." A United States senator stating that
Marines, without trial, are guilty of murder.
> > Of course I can undestand, considering your problems with
> > the truth,
> You're the group liar, Enright. And four
> or five people have just spontaneously up and
> confirmed it within the last day. I'm sure more
> will pipe up if you ask them.
And you are the village idiot. I've never been proven a
liar in this NG because I am not.
> > why you believe that lying about and smearing the
> > Marines is speaking "the truth" about the war.
>
> He didn't lie and smear "the Marines," you
> liar. He was talking about specific individuals.
> Is accusing O.J. Simpson of murder "smearing
> the blacks?" God, you're such a dishonest asshole.
Murtha said "Marines" not "Sgt. Joe Smith", moran.
> And for the sake of argument, let's say that
> Murtha was wrong about one thing out of the gazillion
> things he's been talking about over the last year or
> two, that means everything he said in the last two
> years is lying slander?
I don't know. I haven't followed him that closely.
Maybe it is slander.
> Figures, since you have so much trouble
> with the truth yourself.
-Tom Enright
"Enright is scum, plain and simple. He is truly
the lowest piece of bottom-feeding shit in this chatrum."
--Ralph Kennedy
alic...@yahoo.com
wood...@cableone.net wrote:
> >On 15 Nov 2006 21:12:21 -0800, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops
> You don't really understand what "slander" means, do you?
According to Mr. Webster:
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person --
compare LIBEL
Are you sure you know what "slander" means?
-Tom Enright
Jeffrey Davis
> Quiet, Jeffrey Davis <jd_...@alltel.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
>> James Schrumpf wrote:
>>> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Has someone been blowing McCain's horn lately?
>
McCain's been self-blowing his horn.
rich hammett
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, James Schrumpf:
> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
> let near a leadership position.
Whose opinion has changed like that? Be exact, here.
rich
> The American electorate is paying attention.
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.
Ralph Kennedy
> Ralph Kennedy wrote:
> > alic...@yahoo.com writes:
> > > Ralph Kennedy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for helping to make my point, Mr. Schrumpf,
> > > > to wit, that the Abscam "scandal" happened first, before
> > > > Murtha became a veteran speaking the truth about an
> > > > unpopular war.
> > > >
> > > > Gawd but you're dumn.
>
> > > So when Murtha stated that US Marines had killed civilians
> > > in Haditha "in cold blood" that's speaking the "truth"?
>
> > http://msnbc.com/id/14150687
> >
> > "Evidence...supports accusations that Marines
> > deliberately shot the civilians, including
> > unarmed women and children..."
> >
> > Murtha only reported what he'd been told by
> > Marine officials. And said he'd been told by
> > Marine officials.
>
> Your link doesn't work.
Sorry, I didn't see the "msn" inserted after
msnbc. So make it:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14150687
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/
>
> Murtha accused the marines of murdering civilians
> in "cold blood."
That Murtha said that isn't in dispute, idiot.
This quote does nothing to serve your point. My
URL says the same thing. The point is (as the quote
I cited shows) that the evidence would indicate
it's true (truth isn't slander), and that besides,
Murtha was only reporting (and said he was only
reporting) what Marine Corps officials had told him.
It's not like Murtha read about the incident while
drinking his morning coffee and just jumped to
conclusions and started making up slander, as you
and idiots like Sean Hannity like to pretend.
> > > Of course I can undestand, considering your problems with
> > > the truth,
>
> > You're the group liar, Enright. And four
> > or five people have just spontaneously up and
> > confirmed it within the last day. I'm sure more
> > will pipe up if you ask them.
>
> And you are the village idiot.
*yawn* The fact that we disagree on so many
issues (most of which the majority of the country
agrees with me on) hardly suggests I'm an idiot.
It suggests that you are.
> I've never been proven a liar in this NG because I am not.
You've been proven a liar time and time again,
Enright. Year in, year out. By many people, not
just me.
Funny how you're the only person in this
forum who consistently gets labelled a liar
by many people. Nobody else seems to have that
problem. I wonder why that is?
> > > why you believe that lying about and smearing the
> > > Marines is speaking "the truth" about the war.
> >
> > He didn't lie and smear "the Marines," you
> > liar. He was talking about specific individuals.
> > Is accusing O.J. Simpson of murder "smearing
> > the blacks?" God, you're such a dishonest asshole.
>
> Murtha said "Marines" not "Sgt. Joe Smith", moran.
You're either an idiot or a dishonest bastard.
By "marines" (you'll notice he didn't say "the marines"
in general as you claimed, liar), he clearly meant
"those involved in this incident we're talking about."
DUH. I can't believe you're actually making this
idiotic argument. Well, yes I can, you're a dishonest
asshole who will try ANYTHING, no matter how
transparently stupid, to save face.
> "Enright is scum, plain and simple. He is truly
> the lowest piece of bottom-feeding shit in this chatrum."
That definitely bears repeating.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Thanks for helping to make my point, Mr. Schrumpf,
> > to wit, that the Abscam "scandal" happened first, before
> > Murtha became a veteran speaking the truth about an
> > unpopular war.
> >
> > Gawd but you're dumn.
>
> So when Murtha stated that US Marines had killed civilians
> in Haditha "in cold blood" that's speaking the "truth"?
Unfortunately, that's certainly how it appears.
alic...@yahoo.com
>From the article:
The Marine Corps issued a statement in response to
Murtha's remarks:
"There is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment
at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine
the investigatory and possible legal process. As soon as
the facts are known and decisions on future actions are
made, we will make that information available to the public
to the fullest extent allowable."
Murtha declared the soldiers guilty, the Marine Corp. did
not.
It's not up to Murtha to declare a verdict without a trial.
Murtha is a US Senator, what he said was repeated around
the world.
You wrote:
"Murtha was only reporting (and said he was only
reporting) what Marine Corps officials had told him."
The Marines never "reported" that the Marines were guilty
of murder, in cold blood or hot. Murtha said they were.
<snip childish insults>
-Tom Enright
"Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're
slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You
criticize your history, your institutions, your churches.
Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what
you have done but with what they want."
Dr. Tawfik Hamid, former member of Egypt's radical Al-Gama'a
al-Islamiyya
Trevor Zion Bauknight
alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops
>
> > You don't really understand what "slander" means, do you?
>
> According to Mr. Webster:
>
> 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
> defame and damage another's reputation
> 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person --
> compare LIBEL
>
> Are you sure you know what "slander" means?
Under either definition, the charge needs to be false. Are you sure
you've got that covered?
alic...@yahoo.com
Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote:
> In article <1163682787.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops
> >
> > > You don't really understand what "slander" means, do you?
> >
> > According to Mr. Webster:
> >
> > 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
> > defame and damage another's reputation
> > 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person --
> > compare LIBEL
> >
> > Are you sure you know what "slander" means?
> Under either definition, the charge needs to be false. Are you sure
> you've got that covered?
Sure.
Situation: A military investigation underway to find-out if Marines
had murdered anyone in the town of Haditha.
Murtha: The Marines murdered in cold blood.
Marine Corp.: We don't know what happened and are investigating.
Conclusion: Murtha didn't know if the Marines murdered anyone,
but he said they did.
-Tom Enright
Trevor Zion Bauknight
alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops
> > >
> > > > You don't really understand what "slander" means, do you?
> > >
> > > According to Mr. Webster:
> > >
> > > 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
> > > defame and damage another's reputation
> > > 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person --
> > > compare LIBEL
> > >
> > > Are you sure you know what "slander" means?
>
> > Under either definition, the charge needs to be false. Are you sure
> > you've got that covered?
>
> Sure.
>
> Situation: A military investigation underway to find-out if Marines
> had murdered anyone in the town of Haditha.
>
> Murtha: The Marines murdered in cold blood.
>
> Marine Corp.: We don't know what happened and are investigating.
>
> Conclusion: Murtha didn't know if the Marines murdered anyone,
> but he said they did.
And yet, in order for the charge to be false, it has to not be true.
Hows that investigation coming?
alic...@yahoo.com
Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote:
Here's another court case related to the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101345.html
"A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad
accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq,
will file a lawsuit today in federal court in Washington
claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed
him when the congressman made public comments
about the incident earlier this year.
Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court
papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine's reputation
by telling news organizations in May that the Marine
unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its
members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians
in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the
incident was covered up."
-Tom Enright
Ralph Kennedy
Which was absolutely the correct response for
the Marines to make at that point. So?
> Murtha declared the soldiers guilty, the Marine Corp. did
> not.
Correct, the Marine Corps were still
investigating the incident. But, as Murtha
said, some officers had told him that the
evidence apparently was overwhelmingly against
the marines involved in the incident. Which
is what Murtha said. He did not say "The Marines
officially announced" as you're now trying
to dishonestly imply.
> It's not up to Murtha to declare a verdict without a trial.
He didn't declare a verdict, he said that
Marine officials told him that the Marines involved
in the incident apparently were guilty, according
to the evidence. We can argue back and forth
whether or not Murtha served the overall interests
of the United States by reporting this. At any rate,
he did not slander the United States Marines,
as you and Hannity like to claim. He commented
on a case in progress, which makes him guilty
of no worse than what countless prosecutors and
defense attorneys are "guilty" of day in and day
out in this country: Trying a case in the press
instead of the court.
> Murtha is a US Senator,
He's a member of the House, you jackass.
> what he said was repeated around the world.
Good.
> You wrote:
>
> "Murtha was only reporting (and said he was only
> reporting) what Marine Corps officials had told him."
>
> The Marines never "reported" that the Marines were guilty
> of murder,
Lying asshole, you twist my words right
in front of all our eyes. Read the sentence
right there. "Murtha was only reporting what
Marine Corps officials had told him." Now
you're trying to pretend I said "what the
Marine Corps officially reported."
Like I said, you're lying scum, Enright.
You prove it every day, every post. You're
incapable of making an honest argument.
alic...@yahoo.com
Ralph Kennedy wrote:
> alic...@yahoo.com writes:
So you know what was said to Murtha by these unnamed
Marine officers? Do you have a cite, or a transcript as to
what was said to Murtha?
Murtha said:
"there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised
explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our
troops overreacted because of the pressure on them,
and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
Murtha claims they "overreacted" yet killed in "cold blood."
One excludes the other. He tries to cover all the baes
here, the acted this way because of Bush, they acted
this way out of emotion, they acted this way in cold blood."
> > It's not up to Murtha to declare a verdict without a trial.
>
> He didn't declare a verdict, he said that
> Marine officials told him that the Marines involved
> in the incident apparently were guilty, according
> to the evidence. We can argue back and forth
> whether or not Murtha served the overall interests
> of the United States by reporting this. At any rate,
> he did not slander the United States Marines,
> as you and Hannity like to claim. He commented
> on a case in progress, which makes him guilty
> of no worse than what countless prosecutors and
> defense attorneys are "guilty" of day in and day
> out in this country: Trying a case in the press
> instead of the court.
Murtha declared the Marines guilty while there was
an on-going investigation into the matter.
Considering that a MARINE sued him for LIBEL others
disagree.
> > Murtha is a US Senator,
>
> He's a member of the House, you jackass.
>
> > what he said was repeated around the world.
> Good.
I have no doubt that you are happy that Marines were
convicted by Murtha. The Marine Corp. wasn't.
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "Murtha was only reporting (and said he was only
> > reporting) what Marine Corps officials had told him."
> >
> > The Marines never "reported" that the Marines were guilty
> > of murder,
> Lying asshole, you twist my words right
> in front of all our eyes. Read the sentence
> right there. "Murtha was only reporting what
> Marine Corps officials had told him." Now
> you're trying to pretend I said "what the
> Marine Corps officially reported."
"Murtha was only reporting (and said he was only
reporting) what Marine Corps officials had told him."
According to you, somebody in the Marines REPORTED
to Murtha that the Marines were guilty.
<snip childish insults>
-Tom Enright
> --Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
wood...@cableone.net
>>wood...@cableone.net wrote:
>>>On 15 Nov 2006 21:12:21 -0800, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops
>> You don't really understand what "slander" means, do you?
>According to Mr. Webster:
>1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
>defame and damage another's reputation
>2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person --
>compare LIBEL
>Are you sure you know what "slander" means?
I certainly do. Are you sure that Murtha's statements are false or
misrepresentations? I'm certainly not, but I'd love to hear your
proof of it because I don't want them to be true.
So please...proceed.
Ralph Kennedy
But how could that be, Enright? I thought
you just said Murtha didn't mention any names, but
rather "slandered" the entire Marine Corps.
*guffaw*
It's so fun to watch you try to argue out
of both sides of your mouth.
> Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court
> papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine's reputation
> by telling news organizations in May that the Marine
> unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its
> members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians
> in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the
> incident was covered up."
Nice publicity stunt for the neocons, demonstrating
their typical strategy when cornered of trying to brazenly
turn the tables around on the accuser. Good luck with that.
Ralph Kennedy
>
>
> Murtha claims they "overreacted" yet killed in "cold blood."
> One excludes the other.
Like hell it does.
> > > It's not up to Murtha to declare a verdict without a trial.
> >
> > He didn't declare a verdict, he said that
> > Marine officials told him that the Marines involved
> > in the incident apparently were guilty, according
> > to the evidence. We can argue back and forth
> > whether or not Murtha served the overall interests
> > of the United States by reporting this. At any rate,
> > he did not slander the United States Marines,
> > as you and Hannity like to claim. He commented
> > on a case in progress, which makes him guilty
> > of no worse than what countless prosecutors and
> > defense attorneys are "guilty" of day in and day
> > out in this country: Trying a case in the press
> > instead of the court.
>
> Murtha declared the Marines guilty while there was
> an on-going investigation into the matter.
>
> Considering that a MARINE sued him for LIBEL others
> disagree.
Yeah. "Others" meaning the marine who sued him
and his lawyer. *yawn*
> > > Murtha is a US Senator,
> >
> > He's a member of the House, you jackass.
> >
> > > what he said was repeated around the world.
>
> > Good.
>
> I have no doubt that you are happy that Marines were
> convicted by Murtha. The Marine Corp. wasn't.
>
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > "Murtha was only reporting (and said he was only
> > > reporting) what Marine Corps officials had told him."
> > >
> > > The Marines never "reported" that the Marines were guilty
> > > of murder,
>
> > Lying asshole, you twist my words right
> > in front of all our eyes. Read the sentence
> > right there. "Murtha was only reporting what
> > Marine Corps officials had told him." Now
> > you're trying to pretend I said "what the
> > Marine Corps officially reported."
>
> "Murtha was only reporting (and said he was only
> reporting) what Marine Corps officials had told him."
>
> According to you, somebody in the Marines REPORTED
> to Murtha that the Marines were guilty.
Yes, somebody (actually several somebodies) in
the Marines talked privately to Murtha. I did not
say "The Marines" (meaning the official organization
in an official public record announcement) reported
that the guy was guilty, like you claimed I did.
Crawl back to your sewer, you dishonest, lying
cockroach.
James Schrumpf
>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:48:05 -0600, James Schrumpf
>><jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
>>>Quiet, wood...@cableone.net -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:22 -0600, James Schrumpf
>
>>>>Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>>>>unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>>>>shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>
>>> What precisely does "nearly-bribe-taking" mean, anyway?
>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>>dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
>>http://tinyurl.com/9ncv5
>>"...it was kind of creepy to see the grainy videotape again on "NBC
>>Nightly News," with Murtha saying to a bribe offer: "I'm not
>>interested--at this point. We do business for awhile, maybe I'll be
>>interested, maybe I won't." * * *
>
> Ok, so he's a bit scummy in that he didn't outright just say "Stuff
> it". But the fact remains that he didn't take the bribe.
>
>>See, that's how one does cites.
>
> Did I question your ability to do a cite somewhere?
>
No, you demonstrated in the "Hilary senate voting record" thread that you
didn't know how to do it.
Not to point at just you, but Jeff Davis tried to use a four-year old
post of that supposedly had a cite in it and wanted me to go look it up
on Google.
I'll go on record right now as proposing that if one doesn't have some
kind of a cite to offer in support of a quote or an assertion, one might
as well not mention it at all.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Play like your couch is on fire!
James Schrumpf
>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:38:05 -0600, James Schrumpf
>><jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
>>>Quiet, Jeffrey Davis <jd_...@alltel.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>>> James Schrumpf wrote:
>
>>>> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>>>> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>>>> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>>>> The American electorate is paying attention.
>
>>> Good. D'ya think they're going to hold Charlie Keating against
>>> McCain?
>
>>Has someone been blowing McCain's horn lately?
>
> <raising hand>
>
Well, I meant someone important -- but OK
James Schrumpf
> Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
> olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, James Schrumpf:
>> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>
> Whose opinion has changed like that? Be exact, here.
>
Targeting Murtha
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; 10:48 AM
How exactly did Jack Murtha become a symbol of sleazy behavior?
Nancy Pelosi pushes the guy for majority leader and suddenly--boom!--he's
on the front page of The Washington Post as being ethically challenged.
The New York Times mentions it as well.
So here, according to yesterday's Post, is why there is a "furor" on the
Hill over Murtha's possible ascension to the No. 2 job:
"At issue is Murtha's relationships with two defense lobbyists. Paul
Magliocchetti of the PMA Group is a former aide to the lawmaker, and
Robert 'Kit' Murtha is his brother and was a senior partner at KSA
Consulting from 2002 to 2005.
"The PMA Group has become the go-to firm to approach Murtha as ranking
Democrat on the Appropriations defense subcommittee
"The PMA Group and its clients have been top campaign contributors for
Murtha
Now this is pretty troubling, even if it's become par for the course on
Capitol Hill. So why didn't the media jump on this earlier?
Turns out that the Los Angeles Times broke this story in exhaustive
detail in June 2005, and it received almost no national pickup.
Apparently the media didn't care about Murtha then.
* * *
It's a pretty long article, but still available.
Like I said, I don't make this stuff up, I just report it without (much)
commentary.
wood...@cableone.net
>>Quiet, wood...@cableone.net -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:38:05 -0600, James Schrumpf
>>><jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
>>>>Quiet, Jeffrey Davis <jd_...@alltel.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>>>> James Schrumpf wrote:
>>>>> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>>>>> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>>>>> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>>>>> The American electorate is paying attention.
>>>> Good. D'ya think they're going to hold Charlie Keating against
>>>> McCain?
>>>Has someone been blowing McCain's horn lately?
>> <raising hand>
>Well, I meant someone important -- but OK
Hey!
alic...@yahoo.com
wood...@cableone.net wrote:
> >On 16 Nov 2006 05:13:07 -0800, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>wood...@cableone.net wrote:
> >1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
> >defame and damage another's reputation
> >2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person --
> >compare LIBEL
> >Are you sure you know what "slander" means?
> I certainly do. Are you sure that Murtha's statements are false or
> misrepresentations? I'm certainly not, but I'd love to hear your
> proof of it because I don't want them to be true.
>
> So please...proceed.
A Marine sued Murtha for libel as I indicated in another post.
I could tell you more, but read the cite I provided.
-Tom Enright
rich hammett
> Targeting Murtha
> * * *
I said "be exact." I mean, you're not accusing Howard Kurtz
of doing something unethical, are you?
rich
rich hammett
> In article <Xns987CE31BE8511ja...@216.196.97.142>,
> James Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
>> >> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
>> >> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who
>> >> shouldn't be let near a leadership position.
>> >
>> > When was that? ABSCAM?
>> >
>> > Today's influence peddling makes ABSCAM look like a joke.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I'm not the one raising the issue, either. The Dems are eating their
>> own.
> Good.
No kidding. Bush woulda given him a Presidential Medal of Honor or
Freedom or something.
James Schrumpf
You said "Whose opinion has changed like that? Be exact, here."
I just pointed out what was being said by whom. You can judge for
yourself from their previous statements whose opinion has changed.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Conclusion: Murtha didn't know if the Marines murdered anyone,
> > > but he said they did.
>
> > And yet, in order for the charge to be false, it has to not be true.
> > Hows that investigation coming?
>
> Here's another court case related to the story:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR200608010134
> 5.html
>
> "A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad
> accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq,
> will file a lawsuit today in federal court in Washington
> claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed
> him when the congressman made public comments
> about the incident earlier this year.
>
> Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court
> papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine's reputation
> by telling news organizations in May that the Marine
> unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its
> members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians
> in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the
> incident was covered up."
Good luck running with that. Your defense is that one of the guys
involved is suing? Hi, Larious.
wood...@cableone.net
>>wood...@cableone.net wrote:
>>>On 16 Nov 2006 05:13:07 -0800, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>wood...@cableone.net wrote:
>>>Are you sure you know what "slander" means?
>> I certainly do. Are you sure that Murtha's statements are false or
>> misrepresentations? I'm certainly not, but I'd love to hear your
>> proof of it because I don't want them to be true.
>> So please...proceed.
>A Marine sued Murtha for libel as I indicated in another post.
>I could tell you more, but read the cite I provided.
Nowhere in that cite is there proof that Murtha's statements were
false or misrepresentations.
Would you like to try again or was this your "I give up" posting?
rich hammett
C'mon, answer the question. You made vague accusations, implying
that a lot of people were inconsistent or liars. Who, exactly,
are you willing to back that accusation up against?
Ralph Kennedy
> wood...@cableone.net wrote:
> > >On 16 Nov 2006 05:13:07 -0800, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>wood...@cableone.net wrote:
>
> > >1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
> > >defame and damage another's reputation
> > >2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person --
> > >compare LIBEL
> > >Are you sure you know what "slander" means?
>
> > I certainly do. Are you sure that Murtha's statements are false or
> > misrepresentations? I'm certainly not, but I'd love to hear your
> > proof of it because I don't want them to be true.
> >
> > So please...proceed.
>
> A Marine sued Murtha for libel as I indicated in another post.
> I could tell you more, but read the cite I provided.
Ah, so the mere act of some clown filing a lawsuit
automatically makes his or her assertion true.
Glad to see Enright has finally dropped out the
ranks of wingnut idots yelling for frivolous-lawsuit
"tort reform." Guess he'll be signing on to campaign
for John Edwards when he declares for 2008.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
James Schrumpf
I made no accusations. I merely posted articles from the Interweb. If
you don't agree with them, write some letters to the editors, not me.
rich hammett
> I made no accusations. I merely posted articles from the Interweb. If
> you don't agree with them, write some letters to the editors, not me.
I see, you were only talking about your own irrelevant position
change when you said
"Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
let near a leadership position."
Don't bother us with further evidence of your own instability,
if that's what you were doing.
James Schrumpf
No, I was reiterating the apparent sentiments of the Democratic party,
not my own.
Randolph M. Jones
> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote:
>
>> In article <1163682787.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>>> Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops
>>>> You don't really understand what "slander" means, do you?
>>> According to Mr. Webster:
>>>
>>> 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
>>> defame and damage another's reputation
>>> 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person --
>>> compare LIBEL
>>>
>>> Are you sure you know what "slander" means?
>
>> Under either definition, the charge needs to be false. Are you sure
>> you've got that covered?
>
> Sure.
>
> Situation: A military investigation underway to find-out if Marines
> had murdered anyone in the town of Haditha.
>
> Murtha: The Marines murdered in cold blood.
>
> Marine Corp.: We don't know what happened and are investigating.
>
> Conclusion: Murtha didn't know if the Marines murdered anyone,
> but he said they did.
So by the same logic you are now on board with the notion that the Bush
administration lied about WMDs?
rich hammett
> No, I was reiterating the apparent sentiments of the Democratic party,
> not my own.
I see, so you have some documentation that some actual
_people_ changed their position, or are you making
crap up again?
Kudos, though, for saying "Democratic party," and not
that juvenile "Democrat Party" thing.
James Schrumpf
Man, I've been posting other peoples' comments all along. None of it
was my opinion. I don't know why you're fixating on this being made up
by me.
rich hammett
> Man, I've been posting other peoples' comments all along. None of it
> was my opinion. I don't know why you're fixating on this being made up
> by me.
Here's my original post, which contains your original post. Please
show me the quotes. And then answer the damn question, you weasel:
================
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, James Schrumpf:
> Murtha's gone from a respected veteran speaking the truth about an
> unpopular war to an unethical nearly-bribe-taking scumbag who shouldn't be
> let near a leadership position.
Whose opinion has changed like that? Be exact, here.
rich
> The American electorate is paying attention.
=================
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>>On 15 Nov 2006 21:12:21 -0800, alic...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Either way, Murtha isn't fit. He slanders US troops
>
> You don't really understand what "slander" means, do you?
I think he doesn't understand the concept that the "truth is
an absolute defense" in a slander/libel case.
--
Aaron