Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi’s request for rebranding help
Sp Qr
rebranding help
OVERVIEW: Steven Spielberg rejects Nancy Pelosi's pitiful request to
help her rebrand the Democrat Party, telling her he only directs
actors, not politicians.
Phlip
> HEADLINE: Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi’s request for
> rebranding help
>
> OVERVIEW: Steven Spielberg rejects Nancy Pelosi's pitiful request to
> help her rebrand the Democrat Party, telling her he only directs
> actors, not politicians.
>
That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
Peter Franks
The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response is
valueless.
Phlip
>
> > That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>
> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response is
> valueless.
I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
election. She has no image problem to contain.
Peter Franks
>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven-spielbe...
>>
>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>
>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response is
>> valueless.
>
> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
Read: you can't back up your claim.
> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
> election. She has no image problem to contain.
The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image problem.
They were soundly smacked this last go around.
But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
rial landreth
>> >>
>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven-spielbe...
>>
>> > That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>
>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response is
>> valueless.
>
> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
How do you feel about the Washington Post and CBS?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026499-503544.html
Included in a story on Pelosi in the Washington Post yesterday that got a
little bit lost amid the activity around the busy last day of Congress was
news that lawmakers say Pelosi is now "consulting marketing experts about
building a stronger brand."
"The most prominent of her new whisperers is Steven Spielberg, the
Hollywood director whose films have been works of branding genius," the
story said. "Lawmakers said Spielberg has not reported to Pelosi with a
recommendation."
> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
> election. She has no image problem to contain.
Personally? No.
But that was not the subject of the rebranding was it, liar?
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
Oh?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026499-503544.html
Included in a story on Pelosi in the Washington Post yesterday that got a
little bit lost amid the activity around the busy last day of Congress was
news that lawmakers say Pelosi is now "consulting marketing experts about
building a stronger brand."
"The most prominent of her new whisperers is Steven Spielberg, the
Hollywood director whose films have been works of branding genius," the
story said. "Lawmakers said Spielberg has not reported to Pelosi with a
recommendation."
> Nice try.
Must you ALWAYS lie?
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
> On 12/23/2010 3:12 PM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven-spielbe...
>>>
>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>
>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response is
>>> valueless.
>>
>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>
> Read: you can't back up your claim.
Here's why:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026499-503544.html
>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>
> The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image problem.
> They were soundly smacked this last go around.
>
> But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
He simply lies and lies and lies.
--
+ =/ -
RD Sandman
news:32771c2e-d08e-4f45...@h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
I don't see you posting a cite. Do you have one or did you pull that
comment out of the sky?
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
History shows that today's bailout will become
tomorrow's entitlement.
RD Sandman
news:da36df60-d495-486e...@r8g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>> >> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven-
>> >> spi
> elbe...
>>
>> > That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>
>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. �That means your response is
>> valueless.
>
> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
I wouldn't expect that you would, but I would expect that you should be
able to post a cite backing your claim.
> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
> election. She has no image problem to contain.
At least not in San Francisco.
5868 Dead, 1011 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Here you go, bubbles:
It's a Sun Myung Moon news outlet, so you KNOW you can trust it,
right?
rial landreth
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:32771c2e-d08e-4f45...@h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Dec 23, 2:39 pm, Sp Qr <spqr100...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> HEADLINE: Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi’s request for
>>> rebranding help
>>>
>>> OVERVIEW: Steven Spielberg rejects Nancy Pelosi's pitiful request to
>>> help her rebrand the Democrat Party, telling her he only directs
>>> actors, not politicians.
>>>
>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven-spi
>>> elb
>> e...
>>
>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>
> I don't see you posting a cite. Do you have one or did you pull that
> comment out of the sky?
>
Or somewhere closer to home...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026499-503544.html
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
Here you go, liar, from your UPI linked "cite":
http://fwix.com/dc/share/5d42e91eac/take_two_pelosi_spielberg_deny_posts_story
"According to The Hollywood Reporter, Levy denied that his client has
plans to work as a consultant to Speaker Pelosi."
Iow, all he denies is that he WILL work for her, not that she ASKED him.
> It's a Sun Myung Moon news outlet, so you KNOW you can trust it,
> right?
The Washington Post?
When did that happen?
You really are rife with lies today.
--
+ =/ -
Phlip
things that the far-right spin machine delights in.
I suspect that "Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi’s re quest
for rebranding help" is actually this:
"Steven Spielberg smacks down far-right conspiracy theory that Nancy
Pelosi’s requested rebranding help"
Phlip
> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>
> At least not in San Francisco.
In RD's world that's a flame.
NotMe
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:if0klm$lh2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
As if www.examiner.com is a paragon of journalistic integrity?
rial landreth
> At a guess, i think this headline is one of those guilt-by-omission
> things that the far-right spin machine delights in.
>
The Washington Post is a "far right spin machine"?
Since when?
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
And The Washington Post is, what?
--
+ =/ -
Bob Hammer
<a408408a-a678-448c...@21g2000prv.googlegroups.com>,
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At a guess, i think this headline is one of those guilt-by-omission
> things that the far-right spin machine delights in.
>
> I suspect that "Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi零 re quest
> for rebranding help" is actually this:
>
> "Steven Spielberg smacks down far-right conspiracy theory that Nancy
> Pelosi零 requested rebranding help"
The reality is, very few Americans knows who Pelosi is, of those that
do, a majority think she's an idiot, does it really matter she if asked
Spielberg to brand her? Why would it be seen as unusual anyway - we see
what he did for Castro.
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
> In article
> <a408408a-a678-448c...@21g2000prv.googlegroups.com>,
> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At a guess, i think this headline is one of those guilt-by-omission
>> things that the far-right spin machine delights in.
>>
>> I suspect that "Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi¹s re quest
>> for rebranding help" is actually this:
>>
>> "Steven Spielberg smacks down far-right conspiracy theory that Nancy
>> Pelosi¹s requested rebranding help"
>
> The reality is, very few Americans knows who Pelosi is, of those that
> do, a majority think she's an idiot, does it really matter she if asked
> Spielberg to brand her? Why would it be seen as unusual anyway - we see
> what he did for Castro.
Hmmm. Quite a penchant you've got there for being wrong.
According to polling report, between 7 and 10 percent of those polled
didn't know who she was.
Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her ahead
of every Republican in Congress.
--
Information has never been so free. Even in authoritarian countries
information networks are helping people discover new facts and making
governments more accountable.- US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
January 21, 2010
pyotr filipivich
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> on or about Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:07:04
-0600 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in
talk.politics.guns the following:
>Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:da36df60-d495-486e...@r8g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> >> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven-
>>> >> spi
>> elbe...
>>>
>>> > That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>
>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. �That means your response is
>>> valueless.
>>
>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>
>I wouldn't expect that you would, but I would expect that you should be
>able to post a cite backing your claim.
Phil doesn't like any source which is not authentic - like CNN, or
NBC, Or the New York Times. You know,the sources which repeat the
Democrat talking points and call "racist" anyone who would dare oppose
the policies of the Democrats.
>
>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>
>At least not in San Francisco.
Is there some way we can keep Pelosi in Frisco?
--
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her ahead
> of every Republican in Congress.
Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district and
make a go at the Senate then?
--
+ =/ -
Bob Hammer
<0be288af-bf78-416a...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
For those unfamiliar with San Francisco, or California, it's just
confusing, so it's nice of you to make it clear.
NotMe
"rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:op.vn651...@z-pc.ph.cox.net...
I believe you get what you INSPECT not what you EXPECT. It's called fact
checking and there is a serious lack in the media of late ... say the past
10 or 20 years of so.
rial landreth
So...they were wrong?
Cite?
Or lie?
--
+ =/ -
Rrrrainman Herrrerrrrrerrrrra
Except with the rest of the United States that lies outside her
diseased, homosexual, parasitic district.
The Big Dog
"rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote:
That 33% favorable is from a poll of her immediate family.
CBS has her at 11% approval.
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
bullshit. Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half
now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
Steve
Tsk, tsk, tsk.. mustn't quote data that threatens Zepp's fantasies...
It increases his adult diaper expenses...
"Not only that, but both of us have epilepsy and various sorts of brain troubles."
Mrs. Greywolf Jamieson AKA PJwolf...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/c52ce26745b74c75?hl=en&
rial landreth
Goodness.
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:21:20 -0600, The Big Dog wrote:
>
>> In article <op.vn68l...@z-pc.ph.cox.net>,
>> "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:37:48 -0700, 5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
>>> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her
>>> > ahead of every Republican in Congress.
>>>
>>> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district and
>>> make a go at the Senate then?
>>
>> That 33% favorable is from a poll of her immediate family.
>>
>> CBS has her at 11% approval.
>
>
> bullshit. Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half
> now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
Do we need to remind you of the epic fail you just launched on the
Pelosi-Spielberg matter?
Clearly you have not a iota of credibility here left.
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
wrote:
And even more revealing:
"And in my line, lots of strokes, alcoholism, heart
disease, depression, myopia... Passing on my genes wouldna be doing any
child a favour."
If this is the same poster I think we have a fairly clear picture of why
lying, amorality, and delusional beliefs are the pattern here.
Good grief.
--
+ =/ -
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:21:20 -0600, The Big Dog wrote:
>
>> In article <op.vn68l...@z-pc.ph.cox.net>,
>> "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:37:48 -0700, 5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
>>> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her
>>> > ahead of every Republican in Congress.
>>>
>>> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district and
>>> make a go at the Senate then?
>>
>> That 33% favorable is from a poll of her immediate family.
>>
>> CBS has her at 11% approval.
>
>
>bullshit. Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half
>now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
You too fucking stoned to type "cbs.com," or just too stupid?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Here you go, stoner:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/12/23/GA2010122302649.html?hpid=talkbox1
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/23/steven-spielbergs-not-helping-dems-rebrand/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026499-503544.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/steven-spielberg-nancy-pelosi_n_800547.html
All your favorite leftist media outlets were helping in this
"far-right conspiracy," huh?
[chuckle]
You and I both know she went to Spielberg for makeup advice.
RD Sandman
Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
> It's a Sun Myung Moon news outlet, so you KNOW you can trust it,
> right?
>
--
Lonestar
rial landreth
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
> "5868 Dead, 1011 since 1/20/09" <dead@dead> wrote in
> news:k6p7h659oj2mr5m8s...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/23/2010 3:12 PM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven
>>>>>>> -spielbe...
>>>>>
>>>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response
>>>>> is valueless.
>>>>
>>>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>>>
>>> Read: you can't back up your claim.
>>>
>>>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>
>>> The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image
>>> problem. They were soundly smacked this last go around.
>>>
>>> But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
>>
>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>
>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-Spielberg-
>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>
> Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
He's been caught in yet another lie. This is not surprising at all.
>
>> It's a Sun Myung Moon news outlet, so you KNOW you can trust it,
>> right?
>>
>
>
>
--
+ =/ -
RD Sandman
pc.ph.cox.net:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:05:41 -0700, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:32771c2e-d08e-4f45...@h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>:
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2:39 pm, Sp Qr <spqr100...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> HEADLINE: Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi’s reques
> t for
>>>> rebranding help
>>>>
>>>> OVERVIEW: Steven Spielberg rejects Nancy Pelosi's pitiful request to
>
>>>> help her rebrand the Democrat Party, telling her he only directs
>>>> actors, not politicians.
>>>>
>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven-s
> pi
>>>> elb
>>> e...
>>>
>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>
>> I don't see you posting a cite. Do you have one or did you pull that
>> comment out of the sky?
>>
> Or somewhere closer to home...
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026499-503544.html
>
Yep........however, I saw one cite from him this AM. From the Moony,
however I didn't find anything supporting his view on either Politifact
or FactCheck.
RD Sandman
2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
Oh, that one's only nine months old. And it shows that over half the
respondents either don't know who she is, or have no opinion.
Most impressive!
BTW, just typing in CBS.COM doesn't make any reference to that dated and
inadequate poll.
You really are a fucking moron, aren't you?
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
> "5868 Dead, 1011 since 1/20/09" <dead@dead> wrote in
> news:k6p7h659oj2mr5m8s...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/23/2010 3:12 PM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven
>>>>>>> -spielbe...
>>>>>
>>>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response
>>>>> is valueless.
>>>>
>>>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>>>
>>>Read: you can't back up your claim.
>>>
>>>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>
>>>The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image
>>>problem. They were soundly smacked this last go around.
>>>
>>>But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
>>
>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>
>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-Spielberg-
>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>
> Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
Given that it just happened yesterday, and this is the holidays, I'm
hardly surprised.
Boy, you cling to any lie, no matter how stupid, won't you?
>
>> It's a Sun Myung Moon news outlet, so you KNOW you can trust it, right?
>>
--
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
All making mention of a dated and inadequate poll. And you are pulling
your usual stunt of trying to inflate your lies through exaggeration and
repetition, aren't you?
>
> [chuckle]
>
>
> You and I both know she went to Spielberg for makeup advice.
--
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:43:45 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>>"5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>>>talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:21:20 -0600, The Big Dog wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <op.vn68l...@z-pc.ph.cox.net>,
>>>> "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:37:48 -0700, 5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
>>>>> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her
>>>>> > ahead of every Republican in Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district
>>>>> and make a go at the Senate then?
>>>>
>>>> That 33% favorable is from a poll of her immediate family.
>>>>
>>>> CBS has her at 11% approval.
>>>
>>>
>>>bullshit. Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half
>>>now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
>>
>> You too fucking stoned to type "cbs.com," or just too stupid?
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html
>
>Oh, that one's only nine months old. And it shows that over half the
>respondents either don't know who she is, or have no opinion.
>
>Most impressive!
You claimed
>>>Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half
>>>now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
And in about two seconds I came up with the results of that poll.
Does that make me super smart, or does it make you super stupid?
Or both?
[chuckle]
You stoners are SO easy to fool.
RD Sandman
news:J46dnSr8hp4wIonQ...@posted.carinet:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:21:20 -0600, The Big Dog wrote:
>
>> In article <op.vn68l...@z-pc.ph.cox.net>,
>> "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:37:48 -0700, 5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
>>> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her
>>> > ahead of every Republican in Congress.
>>>
>>> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district
and
>>> make a go at the Senate then?
>>
>> That 33% favorable is from a poll of her immediate family.
>>
>> CBS has her at 11% approval.
>
>
> bullshit. Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half
> now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
Try this one. Don't know why you couldn't find it. It is the one from
CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html
Here is another one from USA Today. It shows her at 29%.
Gray Ghost
pc.ph.cox.net:
How about a run for the Presidency?
--
Democrat donkey pontificating:
Americans only oppose Obama because they are racist....
Americans were against the stiumulus because they are uneducated....
Americans oppose socialism because they are greedy....
Americans are against Obamacare because they are stupid....
Americans are opposed to the Ground Zero mosque because they are bigots....
I just can't figure why Americans are opposed to us.
Maybe 'cuz we're racist, uneducated, greedy, stupid bigots.
Or maybe it's 'cuz you morons sound like Nazis talking about Jews in the
1930s.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Poll? You don't even know what the fuck you're replying to, do you,
stoner?
>And you are pulling
>your usual stunt of trying to inflate your lies through exaggeration and
>repetition, aren't you?
For the readers that HAVEN'T been chugging their bong water this
morning, our resident stoner Zepp complained that the Pelosi/Spielberg
story was only quoted on Fox, and must therefore be a Republican
Conspiracy.
When I showed him that several leftist outlets also ran the story, he
started drooling on himself and muttering about "polls."
Now you know why they call it "dope."
Bob Hammer
"5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:26:03 -0600, Bob Hammer wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <a408408a-a678-448c...@21g2000prv.googlegroups.com>,
> > Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> At a guess, i think this headline is one of those guilt-by-omission
> >> things that the far-right spin machine delights in.
> >>
> >> I suspect that "Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi©–s re quest
> >> for rebranding help" is actually this:
> >>
> >> "Steven Spielberg smacks down far-right conspiracy theory that Nancy
> >> Pelosi©–s requested rebranding help"
> >
> > The reality is, very few Americans knows who Pelosi is, of those that
> > do, a majority think she's an idiot, does it really matter she if asked
> > Spielberg to brand her? Why would it be seen as unusual anyway - we see
> > what he did for Castro.
>
> Hmmm. Quite a penchant you've got there for being wrong.
>
> According to polling report, between 7 and 10 percent of those polled
> didn't know who she was.
>
> Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her ahead
> of every Republican in Congress.
You mean "some polls", and obviously not the CBS poll my data is from.
The approval numbers you cite are approximately the same percentage of
Americans who self-identify as Liberal.
Coincidence?
RD Sandman
news:J46dnVf8hp5aR4nQ...@posted.carinet:
Your two sentences don't make much sense when looked at together. Are
you smoking shit again?
RD Sandman
news:Bob-8D24E9.1...@news.giganews.com:
Yep. The Daily Kos rates her at 83% favorable. Of course they are
nowhere near a random sampling of the population.
> The approval numbers you cite are approximately the same percentage of
> Americans who self-identify as Liberal.
>
> Coincidence?
>
--
bpuharic
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>>
>>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-Spielberg-
>>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>>
>> Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
>
>Given that it just happened yesterday, and this is the holidays, I'm
>hardly surprised.
no, no no...you have it all wrong! their measure of truth is 'did my
sister's nephew's barber's podiatrist's handyman hear about it'....
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
It makes you super dishonest.
cbs.com doesn't give any direct leads to that poll.
And of course, the poll, besides being ancient, is also irrelevant. She
only had 36% unfavorable, compared with 62% for Sarah Palin now.
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
Well, Hummer, you cling to your dated and meaningless poll. It will give
you solace as you jerk off to pictures of Sarah Palin, whose negatives
are DOUBLE those of Nancy Pelosi's.
>
> The approval numbers you cite are approximately the same percentage of
> Americans who self-identify as Liberal.
>
> Coincidence?
Gee, Gomer, you THINK?
Klaus Schadenfreude
I never claimed it did. With just that tiny clue- 'cbs.com'-- I was
able to locate the poll YOU COULDN"T FIND FOR A YEAR AND A HALF in
just seconds.
That makes you stupid.
>And of course, the poll, besides being ancient, is also irrelevant. She
>only had 36% unfavorable, compared with 62% for Sarah Palin now.
Since your attention span is so short, I'll repeat what I said.
You claimed
:Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half now, but
:not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
And in about two seconds I came up with the results of that poll.
That makes you super dishonest. And minus another 100 points for using
Palin as a diversion for your stupidity and dishonesty.
Leftists.
Can you people EVER stop lying?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:22:02 -0600, Bob Hammer wrote:
>
>> In article <XuOdna0e86MRiInQ...@posted.carinet>,
>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:26:03 -0600, Bob Hammer wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article
>>> > <a408408a-a678-448c...@21g2000prv.googlegroups.com>,
>>> > Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> At a guess, i think this headline is one of those guilt-by-omission
>>> >> things that the far-right spin machine delights in.
>>> >>
>>> >> I suspect that "Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi©?s re
>>> >> quest for rebranding help" is actually this:
>>> >>
>>> >> "Steven Spielberg smacks down far-right conspiracy theory that Nancy
>>> >> Pelosi©?s requested rebranding help"
>>> >
>>> > The reality is, very few Americans knows who Pelosi is, of those that
>>> > do, a majority think she's an idiot, does it really matter she if
>>> > asked Spielberg to brand her? Why would it be seen as unusual anyway
>>> > - we see what he did for Castro.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Quite a penchant you've got there for being wrong.
>>>
>>> According to polling report, between 7 and 10 percent of those polled
>>> didn't know who she was.
>>>
>>> Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her
>>> ahead of every Republican in Congress.
>>
>> You mean "some polls", and obviously not the CBS poll my data is from.
>
>Well, Hummer, you cling to your dated and meaningless poll.
The one ANYBODY can find-- except you, you mean?
[chuckle]
> It will give
>you solace as you jerk off to pictures of Sarah Palin, whose negatives
>are DOUBLE those of Nancy Pelosi's.
This will probably make you tip over your bong, but Palin isn't a
public official, so her poll numbers don't matter.
Pelosi, on the other hand, ranks higher than Hitler did in the 1943
Leningrad Popularity poll, so that must be a GOOD thing.
>> The approval numbers you cite are approximately the same percentage of
>> Americans who self-identify as Liberal.
>>
>> Coincidence?
>
>Gee, Gomer, you THINK?
Yes he does. Why don't you give it a try some time?
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0be288af-bf78-416a-a37d-
> 2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> > Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>
>>> At least not in San Francisco.
>>
>> In RD's world that's a flame.
>>
>>
> Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
It's called a "dog whistle". You want to appeal to the ignorant, the
hate-filled and the stupid, but don't want to sound ignorant, hate-filled
and stupid yourself, you put it in a code phrase that the KKK will get,
but decent people are less likely to read as a smear.
Phlip
> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>
> diseased, homosexual, parasitic district.
Within the sphere of influence of Silicon Valley, Lawrence Livermore,
Sandia Labs; all totally gaaay institutions!
RD Sandman
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:31:06 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0be288af-bf78-416a-a37d-
>> 2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> > Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>
>>>> At least not in San Francisco.
>>>
>>> In RD's world that's a flame.
>>>
>>>
>> Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
>
> It's called a "dog whistle". You want to appeal to the ignorant, the
> hate-filled and the stupid, but don't want to sound ignorant,
> hate-filled and stupid yourself, you put it in a code phrase that the
> KKK will get, but decent people are less likely to read as a smear.
Your thinking is really getting convoluted, isn't it. Are you feeling
well?
RD Sandman
news:32t9h657tf1vmj3c4...@4ax.com:
She also lost to Cheney who had better poll numbers than she does. ;)
>>> The approval numbers you cite are approximately the same percentage
>>> of Americans who self-identify as Liberal.
>>>
>>> Coincidence?
>>
>>Gee, Gomer, you THINK?
>
> Yes he does. Why don't you give it a try some time?
>
--
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
Oh, I thought it was the OTHER mindless right wing drivel about the 11%
approval poll.
This one is you carrying on because debunker sites haven't called you on
your latest bullshit on a holiday weekend, isn't it?
>
>>And you are pulling
>>your usual stunt of trying to inflate your lies through exaggeration and
>>repetition, aren't you?
>
> For the readers that HAVEN'T been chugging their bong water this
> morning, our resident stoner Zepp complained that the Pelosi/Spielberg
> story was only quoted on Fox, and must therefore be a Republican
> Conspiracy.
>
> When I showed him that several leftist outlets also ran the story, he
> started drooling on himself and muttering about "polls."
>
> Now you know why they call it "dope."
--
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
That's why they are two different paragraphs, bubbles.
Didn't you make it past 8th grade?
Phlip
> make a go at the Senate then?
In a state now run by an entirely Democratic governorship, and two
female Democratic Senators? Darn!
> How about a run for the Presidency?
Worked for Reagan.
RD Sandman
dnYJB_YTGZonQn...@posted.carinet:
Look at what you said in each. They are mutually exclusive. You claim it
only happened yesterday so Politifact and Factcheck haven't had time to
debunk it, yet I am clinging to it under the same time frame. No wonder
everyone thinks you are confused and absolutely partisan to the sake of
losing the truth.
Phlip
> Look at what you said in each. They are mutually exclusive. You claim it
> only happened yesterday so Politifact and Factcheck haven't had time to
> debunk it, yet I am clinging to it under the same time frame. No wonder
> everyone thinks you are confused and absolutely partisan to the sake of
> losing the truth.
Please try to maintain that charming /esprit-de-corps/ when Pelosis
numbers come out for this week, k?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:31:06 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0be288af-bf78-416a-a37d-
>> 2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> > Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>
>>>> At least not in San Francisco.
>>>
>>> In RD's world that's a flame.
>>>
>>>
>> Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
>
>It's called a "dog whistle". You want to appeal to the ignorant, the
>hate-filled and the stupid
Well, he WAS replying to YOU.
Here's hoping Santa brings you some brains for Christmas.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Of COURSE you did. Put down the meth pipe before you post next time.
You have ENOUGH trouble keeping up.
[chuckle]
>This one is you carrying on because debunker sites haven't called you on
>your latest bullshit on a holiday weekend, isn't it?
WTF are you babbling about NOW?
Is that some GOOD SHIT you're smoking?
RD Sandman
081369...@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
I have no problem with her numbers in either direction. She belongs to
the Democrats and unless she really fucks up will be there for at least
two more years.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Good luck with that.
Pelosi-Reid led Congress receives a Record Low Approval Rating of 13
percent
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2emofsu
Randy Bradbury
We are carbon based, like all life forms on Earth.
But is "5864 Dead" brain parts compatible with the stuff Santa has in
innovatory?
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
Oh, he'll promptly forget this issue even existed. He's just a party
hack, after all, and can't really think for himself.
Phlip
> >numbers come out for this week, k?
>
> Good luck with that.
DADT, the 9/11 responders health care bill, and START just passed,
right?
Equal rights, health care, and Obama advancing Reagan's polices that
helped end the Cold War. Who could argue with THAT?
Foxtrot
>HEADLINE: Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi’s request for
>rebranding help
>OVERVIEW: Steven Spielberg rejects Nancy Pelosi's pitiful request to
>help her rebrand the Democrat Party, telling her he only directs
>actors, not politicians.
The genius who made ET look believable and the Holy Grail seem
reachable can't help Pelooni! The man who was able to resurrect
velocirapators and make them look presentable can't save her public
image. LOL.
Gray Ghost
@m20g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
Are you really that deluded to think she'd win?
--
Democrat donkey pontificating:
Americans only oppose Obama because they are racist....
Americans were against the stiumulus because they are uneducated....
Americans oppose socialism because they are greedy....
Americans are against Obamacare because they are stupid....
Americans are opposed to the Ground Zero mosque because they are bigots....
I just can't figure why Americans are opposed to us.
Maybe 'cuz we're racist, uneducated, greedy, stupid bigots.
Or maybe it's 'cuz you morons sound like Nazis talking about Jews in the
1930s.
Bob Hammer
"5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:21:20 -0600, The Big Dog wrote:
>
> > In article <op.vn68l...@z-pc.ph.cox.net>,
> > "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:37:48 -0700, 5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
> >> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her
> >> > ahead of every Republican in Congress.
> >>
> >> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district and
> >> make a go at the Senate then?
> >
> > That 33% favorable is from a poll of her immediate family.
> >
> > CBS has her at 11% approval.
>
>
> bullshit. Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half
> now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
Googling "CBS poll pelosi" brought this up as the top hit.
RD Sandman
f3dbb3...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Healthcare isn't paid for. It requires MANDATORY purchase of healthcare
or go to jail (which has already been declared unconstitutional by one
judge so it should end up in the Supreme Court for next spring) and fixes
to Medicare/Medicaid (both expected to soar in costs over the next
decade...Medicare by 77% and Medicaid by 99%) and both of those are
entitlements that are considered to be third rail politics by most
Senators and Congressmen.
rial landreth
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
> "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote in news:op.vn6y38ppjikajp@z-
> pc.ph.cox.net:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:05:41 -0700, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:32771c2e-d08e-4f45...@h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>>
>>>> On Dec 23, 2:39 pm, Sp Qr <spqr100...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> HEADLINE: Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi’s reques
>> t for
>>>>> rebranding help
>>>>>
>>>>> OVERVIEW: Steven Spielberg rejects Nancy Pelosi's pitiful request to
>>
>>>>> help her rebrand the Democrat Party, telling her he only directs
>>>>> actors, not politicians.
>>>>>
>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven-s
>> pi
>>>>> elb
>>>> e...
>>>>
>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>
>>> I don't see you posting a cite. Do you have one or did you pull that
>>> comment out of the sky?
>>>
>> Or somewhere closer to home...
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026499-503544.html
>>
>
> Yep........however, I saw one cite from him this AM. From the Moony,
> however I didn't find anything supporting his view on either Politifact
> or FactCheck.
>
All there is about it is the publicist saying it's not an active deal.
Phlip lies reflexively.
--
+ =/ -
RD Sandman
dnWRrZa7mkYjQn...@posted.carinet:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:17:45 -0800, Phlip wrote:
>
>> On Dec 24, 12:01 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net>
wrote:
>>
>>> Look at what you said in each. They are mutually exclusive. You
claim
>>> it only happened yesterday so Politifact and Factcheck haven't had
time
>>> to debunk it, yet I am clinging to it under the same time frame. No
>>> wonder everyone thinks you are confused and absolutely partisan to
the
>>> sake of losing the truth.
>>
>> Please try to maintain that charming /esprit-de-corps/ when Pelosis
>> numbers come out for this week, k?
>
> Oh, he'll promptly forget this issue even existed. He's just a party
> hack, after all, and can't really think for himself.
Speaking of party hacks, how are you? At least I place the blame where
it belongs....on both parties.....starting with the deregulation of
Fannie and Freddie under Clinton.
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:43:45 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:21:20 -0600, The Big Dog wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <op.vn68l...@z-pc.ph.cox.net>,
>>>> "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:37:48 -0700, 5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
>>>>> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her
>>>>> > ahead of every Republican in Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district
>>>>> and make a go at the Senate then?
>>>>
>>>> That 33% favorable is from a poll of her immediate family.
>>>>
>>>> CBS has her at 11% approval.
>>>
>>>
>>> bullshit. Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half
>>> now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
>>
>> You too fucking stoned to type "cbs.com," or just too stupid?
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html
>
> Oh, that one's only nine months old.
So now the moving of the goalposts begins. Why not just admit you reacted
without checking facts?
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:13:07 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>> "5868 Dead, 1011 since 1/20/09" <dead@dead> wrote in
>> news:k6p7h659oj2mr5m8s...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/23/2010 3:12 PM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/steven
>>>>>>>> -spielbe...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response
>>>>>> is valueless.
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>>>>
>>>> Read: you can't back up your claim.
>>>>
>>>>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>
>>>> The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image
>>>> problem. They were soundly smacked this last go around.
>>>>
>>>> But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
>>>
>>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>>
>>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-Spielberg-
>>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>>
>> Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
>
> Given that it just happened yesterday, and this is the holidays, I'm
> hardly surprised.
>
> Boy, you cling to any lie, no matter how stupid, won't you?
Which lie?
The publicist said there would be no active deal, he didn't deny the
request was made.
Why do you folks squirm so much?
>>> It's a Sun Myung Moon news outlet, so you KNOW you can trust it, right?
>>>
>
As I said, the Washington Post?
Since when?
--
+ =/ -
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
> news:J46dnVP8hp7vaInQ...@posted.carinet:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:31:06 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0be288af-bf78-416a-a37d-
>>> 2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>> > Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least not in San Francisco.
>>>>
>>>> In RD's world that's a flame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
>>
>> It's called a "dog whistle". You want to appeal to the ignorant, the
>> hate-filled and the stupid, but don't want to sound ignorant,
>> hate-filled and stupid yourself, you put it in a code phrase that the
>> KKK will get, but decent people are less likely to read as a smear.
>
> Your thinking is really getting convoluted, isn't it. Are you feeling
> well?
Quite well, actually. It's fun making you go in circles.
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:48:21 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>> "5868 Dead, 1011 since 1/20/09" <dead@dead> wrote in talk.politics.guns
>>> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/23/2010 3:12 PM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/
> steven-spielbe...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response
>>>>>> is valueless.
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>>>>
>>>> Read: you can't back up your claim.
>>>>
>>>>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>
>>>> The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image
>>>> problem. They were soundly smacked this last go around.
>>>>
>>>> But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
>>>
>>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>>
>>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-Spielberg-
> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>>>
>>> It's a Sun Myung Moon news outlet, so you KNOW you can trust it, right?
>>
>> Here you go, stoner:
>>
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/12/23/
> GA2010122302649.html?hpid=talkbox1
>> http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/23/steven-spielbergs-not-helping-
> dems-rebrand/
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026499-503544.html
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/steven-spielberg-nancy-
> pelosi_n_800547.html
>>
>> All your favorite leftist media outlets were helping in this "far-right
>> conspiracy," huh?
>
You're trying very hard to squirm out of the fact it was fairly reported
and cited.
This makes your credibility nil here.
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote in news:op.vn68ljhcjikajp@z-
> pc.ph.cox.net:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:37:48 -0700, 5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
>> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her
>>> ahead
>>> of every Republican in Congress.
>>
>> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district and
>> make a go at the Senate then?
>
> How about a run for the Presidency?
>
Fair enough, Hillary has said she won't do it, why not then.
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>> talk.politics.guns :
>> All making mention of a dated and inadequate poll.
>
> Poll? You don't even know what the fuck you're replying to, do you,
> stoner?
>
>> And you are pulling
>> your usual stunt of trying to inflate your lies through exaggeration and
>> repetition, aren't you?
>
> For the readers that HAVEN'T been chugging their bong water this
> morning, our resident stoner Zepp complained that the Pelosi/Spielberg
> story was only quoted on Fox, and must therefore be a Republican
> Conspiracy.
>
> When I showed him that several leftist outlets also ran the story, he
> started drooling on himself and muttering about "polls."
>
> Now you know why they call it "dope."
>
>
>
Golly!
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
> news:J46dnVf8hp5aR4nQ...@posted.carinet:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:13:07 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> "5868 Dead, 1011 since 1/20/09" <dead@dead> wrote in
>>> news:k6p7h659oj2mr5m8s...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/23/2010 3:12 PM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-
> vancouver/steven
>>>>>>>>> -spielbe...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response
>>>>>>> is valueless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read: you can't back up your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image
>>>>> problem. They were soundly smacked this last go around.
>>>>>
>>>>> But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
>>>>
>>>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-
> Spielberg-
>>>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>>>
>>> Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
>>
>> Given that it just happened yesterday, and this is the holidays, I'm
>> hardly surprised.
>>
>> Boy, you cling to any lie, no matter how stupid, won't you?
>
> Your two sentences don't make much sense when looked at together. Are
> you smoking shit again?
>
>
Seems like.
--
+ =/ -
5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>"5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>>>talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:31:06 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0be288af-bf78-416a-a37d-
>>>>2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>>>>election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At least not in San Francisco.
>>>>>
>>>>>In RD's world that's a flame.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
>>>
>>>It's called a "dog whistle". You want to appeal to the ignorant, the
>>>hate-filled and the stupid
>>
>>
>> Well, he WAS replying to YOU.
And do you suppose he was trying to APPEAL to me, bubbles?
>>
>> Here's hoping Santa brings you some brains for Christmas.
Wouldn't need them for Usenet.
>
>
> We are carbon based, like all life forms on Earth.
>
> But is "5864 Dead" brain parts compatible with the stuff Santa has in
> innovatory?
--
rial landreth
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:39:19 -0600, "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09"
> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-Spielberg-
>>>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>>>
>>> Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
>>
>> Given that it just happened yesterday, and this is the holidays, I'm
>> hardly surprised.
>
> no, no no...you have it all wrong! their measure of truth is
As has been documented you are no one to discuss or grade "truth" here.
--
+ =/ -
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:48:36 -0700, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:39:19 -0600, "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09"
>> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-Spielberg-
>>>>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
>>>
>>> Given that it just happened yesterday, and this is the holidays, I'm
>>> hardly surprised.
>>
>> no, no no...you have it all wrong! their measure of truth is
>
>As has been documented you are no one to discuss or grade "truth" here.
those who get their news from rush and glen are in no position to tell
others what to think
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:41:48 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:43:45 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>>>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:21:20 -0600, The Big Dog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <op.vn68l...@z-pc.ph.cox.net>,
>>>>>> "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:37:48 -0700, 5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
>>>>>>> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts
>>>>>>> > her ahead of every Republican in Congress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district
>>>>>>> and make a go at the Senate then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That 33% favorable is from a poll of her immediate family.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CBS has her at 11% approval.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bullshit. Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a
>>>>> half
>>>>> now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
>>>>
>>>> You too fucking stoned to type "cbs.com," or just too stupid?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html
>>>
>>> Oh, that one's only nine months old. And it shows that over half the
>>> respondents either don't know who she is, or have no opinion.
>>>
>>> Most impressive!
>>
>> You claimed
>>
>>
>>>>> Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half now, but
>>>>> not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
>>
>>
>> And in about two seconds I came up with the results of that poll.
>>
>> Does that make me super smart, or does it make you super stupid?
>>
>> Or both?
>>
>> [chuckle]
>>
>> You stoners are SO easy to fool.
>
> It makes you super dishonest.
No, he brought the facts, it was you who reflexively lied.
> cbs.com doesn't give any direct leads to that poll.
More squirming.
> And of course, the poll, besides being ancient, is also irrelevant.
That must be from the bphuharic playbook. The facts are always irrelevant
when you get tripped up by them.
Have you no sense of personal pride at all?
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:22:02 -0600, Bob Hammer wrote:
>
>> In article <XuOdna0e86MRiInQ...@posted.carinet>,
>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:26:03 -0600, Bob Hammer wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article
>>> > <a408408a-a678-448c...@21g2000prv.googlegroups.com>,
>>> > Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> At a guess, i think this headline is one of those guilt-by-omission
>>> >> things that the far-right spin machine delights in.
>>> >>
>>> >> I suspect that "Steven Spielberg smacks down Nancy Pelosi© s re
>>> >> quest for rebranding help" is actually this:
>>> >>
>>> >> "Steven Spielberg smacks down far-right conspiracy theory that Nancy
>>> >> Pelosi© s requested rebranding help"
>>> >
>>> > The reality is, very few Americans knows who Pelosi is, of those that
>>> > do, a majority think she's an idiot, does it really matter she if
>>> > asked Spielberg to brand her? Why would it be seen as unusual anyway
>>> > - we see what he did for Castro.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Quite a penchant you've got there for being wrong.
>>>
>>> According to polling report, between 7 and 10 percent of those polled
>>> didn't know who she was.
>>>
>>> Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts her
>>> ahead of every Republican in Congress.
>>
>> You mean "some polls", and obviously not the CBS poll my data is from.
>
> Well, Hummer, you cling to your dated and meaningless poll. It will give
> you solace as you jerk off to pictures of Sarah Palin, whose negatives
> are DOUBLE those of Nancy Pelosi's.
There we go, it was well nigh time to retire the overt lying and engage in
crude sexual insults.
Is it any wonder not one person here, outside of your liar's circle jerk,
trusts a thing you post?
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>> talk.politics.guns :
>
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:41:48 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:43:45 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>>>>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:21:20 -0600, The Big Dog wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <op.vn68l...@z-pc.ph.cox.net>,
>>>>>>> "rial landreth" <rl...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:37:48 -0700, 5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09
>>>>>>>> <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Polls show her about 33% favorable, 52% unfavorable, which puts
>>>>>>>> > her ahead of every Republican in Congress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district
>>>>>>>> and make a go at the Senate then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That 33% favorable is from a poll of her immediate family.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CBS has her at 11% approval.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bullshit. Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a
>>>>>> half
>>>>>> now, but not one has ever come up with the source cite for that
>>>>>> poll.
>>>>>
>>>>> You too fucking stoned to type "cbs.com," or just too stupid?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html
>>>>
>>>> Oh, that one's only nine months old. And it shows that over half the
>>>> respondents either don't know who she is, or have no opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Most impressive!
>>>
>>> You claimed
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half now, but
>>>>>> not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
>>>
>>>
>>> And in about two seconds I came up with the results of that poll.
>>>
>>> Does that make me super smart, or does it make you super stupid?
>>>
>>> Or both?
>>>
>>> [chuckle]
>>>
>>> You stoners are SO easy to fool.
>>
>> It makes you super dishonest.
>>
>> cbs.com doesn't give any direct leads to that poll.
>
> I never claimed it did. With just that tiny clue- 'cbs.com'-- I was
> able to locate the poll YOU COULDN"T FIND FOR A YEAR AND A HALF in
> just seconds.
>
> That makes you stupid.
AND a liar.
>
>
>> And of course, the poll, besides being ancient, is also irrelevant. She
>> only had 36% unfavorable, compared with 62% for Sarah Palin now.
>
> Since your attention span is so short, I'll repeat what I said.
>
>
> You claimed
>
>
> :Right wingers have been claiming that for a year and a half now, but
> :not one has ever come up with the source cite for that poll.
>
>
> And in about two seconds I came up with the results of that poll.
>
> That makes you super dishonest. And minus another 100 points for using
> Palin as a diversion for your stupidity and dishonesty.
>
> Leftists.
>
> Can you people EVER stop lying?
I'm guessing no.
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:31:06 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0be288af-bf78-416a-a37d-
>> 2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> > Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>
>>>> At least not in San Francisco.
>>>
>>> In RD's world that's a flame.
>>>
>>>
>> Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
>
> It's called a "dog whistle". You want to appeal to the ignorant, the
> hate-filled and the stupid, but don't want to sound ignorant, hate-filled
> and stupid yourself, you put it in a code phrase that the KKK will get,
> but decent people are less likely to read as a smear.
Hang on here, now "San Francisco" (her district iirc), is a "code word"
for the KKK?
Do you have any clue how weird and creepy you're making yourself look here?
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
>> > Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>
>> Except with the rest of the United States that lies outside her
>> diseased, homosexual, parasitic district.
>
> Within the sphere of influence of Silicon Valley, Lawrence Livermore,
> Sandia Labs; all totally gaaay institutions!
In your mind they reflect the bulk of electorate there? I do hope you're
not going to tender that lie.
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
> news:J46dnVP8hp7vaInQ...@posted.carinet:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:31:06 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0be288af-bf78-416a-a37d-
>>> 2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>> > Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least not in San Francisco.
>>>>
>>>> In RD's world that's a flame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
>>
>> It's called a "dog whistle". You want to appeal to the ignorant, the
>> hate-filled and the stupid, but don't want to sound ignorant,
>> hate-filled and stupid yourself, you put it in a code phrase that the
>> KKK will get, but decent people are less likely to read as a smear.
>
> Your thinking is really getting convoluted, isn't it. Are you feeling
> well?
>
How can a city name (her district) be a code word?
The guy's nuts.
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:18:29 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:48:21 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "5868 Dead, 1011 since 1/20/09" <dead@dead> wrote in
>>>>> talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/23/2010 3:12 PM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/
>>> steven-spielbe...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response
>>>>>>>> is valueless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read: you can't back up your claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>>>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image
>>>>>> problem. They were soundly smacked this last go around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-
> Spielberg-
>>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a Sun Myung Moon news outlet, so you KNOW you can trust it,
>>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> Here you go, stoner:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/12/23/
>>> GA2010122302649.html?hpid=talkbox1
>>>> http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/23/steven-spielbergs-not-helping-
>>> dems-rebrand/
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026499-503544.html
>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/steven-spielberg-nancy-
>>> pelosi_n_800547.html
>>>>
>>>> All your favorite leftist media outlets were helping in this
>>>> "far-right conspiracy," huh?
>>>
>>> All making mention of a dated and inadequate poll.
>>
>> Poll? You don't even know what the fuck you're replying to, do you,
>> stoner?
>
> Oh, I thought it was the OTHER mindless right wing drivel about the 11%
> approval poll.
The problem with lyig so much is they become hard to keep track of, maybe
if you went for honesty now and then.
> This one is you carrying on because debunker sites haven't called you on
> your latest bullshit on a holiday weekend, isn't it?
You truly are making yourself into a running joke here.
>>
>>> And you are pulling
>>> your usual stunt of trying to inflate your lies through exaggeration
>>> and
>>> repetition, aren't you?
>>
>> For the readers that HAVEN'T been chugging their bong water this
>> morning, our resident stoner Zepp complained that the Pelosi/Spielberg
>> story was only quoted on Fox, and must therefore be a Republican
>> Conspiracy.
>>
>> When I showed him that several leftist outlets also ran the story, he
>> started drooling on himself and muttering about "polls."
>>
>> Now you know why they call it "dope."
>
>
>
>
>
--
+ =/ -
RD Sandman
rial landreth
<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:34:26 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>> news:J46dnVf8hp5aR4nQ...@posted.carinet:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:13:07 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>>> "5868 Dead, 1011 since 1/20/09" <dead@dead> wrote in
>>>> news:k6p7h659oj2mr5m8s...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/23/2010 3:12 PM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-
>> vancouver/steven
>>>>>>>>>> -spielbe...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your response
>>>>>>>> is valueless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read: you can't back up your claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>>>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image
>>>>>> problem. They were soundly smacked this last go around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-
>> Spielberg-
>>>>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
>>>
>>> Given that it just happened yesterday, and this is the holidays, I'm
>>> hardly surprised.
>>>
>>> Boy, you cling to any lie, no matter how stupid, won't you?
>>
>> Your two sentences don't make much sense when looked at together. Are
>> you smoking shit again?
>
> That's why they are two different paragraphs, bubbles.
>
> Didn't you make it past 8th grade?
In any format there is quite little of what you post that makes the
slightest sense. If you are liquored up or stoned it might be wiser to
post when you get sober again.
--
+ =/ -
RD Sandman
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 13:54:00 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>> news:J46dnVP8hp7vaInQ...@posted.carinet:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:31:06 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0be288af-bf78-416a-a37d-
>>>> 2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>>> > Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>>> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least not in San Francisco.
>>>>>
>>>>> In RD's world that's a flame.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
>>>
>>> It's called a "dog whistle". You want to appeal to the ignorant, the
>>> hate-filled and the stupid, but don't want to sound ignorant,
>>> hate-filled and stupid yourself, you put it in a code phrase that the
>>> KKK will get, but decent people are less likely to read as a smear.
>>
>> Your thinking is really getting convoluted, isn't it. Are you feeling
>> well?
>
> Quite well, actually. It's fun making you go in circles.
Then you must be quite bored since you haven't done that yet.
RD Sandman
pc.ph.cox.net:
I wouldn't bet against that.
rial landreth
>> Perhaps she ought to abandon the friendly confines of her district and
>> make a go at the Senate then?
>
> In a state now run by an entirely Democratic governorship, and two
> female Democratic Senators? Darn!
I believe she'd be a slight improvement over the current two.
>> How about a run for the Presidency?
>
> Worked for Reagan.
I don't believe he had poll numbers at the time as low as hers. Then again
he also wasn't a sitting representative.
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:Hb-
> dnYJB_YTGZonQn...@posted.carinet:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:34:26 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>>> news:J46dnVf8hp5aR4nQ...@posted.carinet:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:13:07 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "5868 Dead, 1011 since 1/20/09" <dead@dead> wrote in
>>>>> news:k6p7h659oj2mr5m8s...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/23/2010 3:12 PM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> LINK:http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-
>>> vancouver/steven
>>>>>>>>>>> -spielbe...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That "request" is already debunked. Nice try.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The OP provided a reference, you didn't. That means your
>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>> is valueless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I won't reference trash like The Examiner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read: you can't back up your claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>>>>> election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Democratic party and congressional caucus have a real image
>>>>>>> problem. They were soundly smacked this last go around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But who cares, you still haven't debunked anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here you go, bubbles:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Local/2010/12/23/TAKE-TWO-Pelosi-
>>> Spielberg-
>>>>>> deny-Posts-story/11-5d42e91eac
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting that neither Politifact nor Factcheck "debunk" it.
>>>>
>>>> Given that it just happened yesterday, and this is the holidays, I'm
>>>> hardly surprised.
>>>>
>>>> Boy, you cling to any lie, no matter how stupid, won't you?
>>>
>>> Your two sentences don't make much sense when looked at together. Are
>>> you smoking shit again?
>>
>> That's why they are two different paragraphs, bubbles.
>>
>> Didn't you make it past 8th grade?
>
> Look at what you said in each. They are mutually exclusive. You claim it
> only happened yesterday so Politifact and Factcheck haven't had time to
> debunk it, yet I am clinging to it under the same time frame. No wonder
> everyone thinks you are confused and absolutely partisan to the sake of
> losing the truth.
>
>
Even allowing for a possible substance use issue, I think he's simply a
liar to the core, which is the key unifying trait of his pod - Phlip,
bpuharic, and Free Lunch.
--
+ =/ -
rial landreth
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "5864 Dead, 1007 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in
>> talk.politics.guns :
>
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:31:06 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0be288af-bf78-416a-a37d-
>>> 2baaed...@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>> > Further, Pelosi got reelected at 80%, higher than her previous
>>>>> > election. She has no image problem to contain.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least not in San Francisco.
>>>>
>>>> In RD's world that's a flame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nope, just a comment that most will understand.
>>
>> It's called a "dog whistle". You want to appeal to the ignorant, the
>> hate-filled and the stupid
>
> Well, he WAS replying to YOU.
>
> Here's hoping Santa brings you some brains for Christmas.
Oh that'd upset the NORAD tracking site...
--
+ =/ -