Re: Obama tried to steal Indiana <c3a83d78-864c-42c6-b24c-56649888b253@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <bYydnW4PRbDvXL_VnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@earthlink.com> <3b7ee009-9cbc-4042-987f-b4e26b2ee256@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <BNJUj.2088$7k7.1825@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com> <9b10c97b-ed0d-4253-910c-213f05b23834@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <d-adnZmxH95Qcb7VnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@earthlink.com> <efb569d4-5b62-4246-9cdf-dcbcb63fca31@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <a_KdncAq081R5bnVnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@earthlink.com> <2a8cb22c-21b0-45f1-b8c2-6112da6bf829@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
Bill Baker
in message
news:<2a8cb22c-21b0-45f1...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> > I have. countless times.
>>
>> No, actually you haven't
>
> Here's one from the day before:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/27391c76ee19a98f?dmode=source
>
> If you want more than one, here's another -- posted in
> direct reply to you -- posted on April 18th:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9b4d437209d0c732?dmode=source
>
> There. Once again, you have been proven to be either
> lazy, stupid or a liar.
>
> Are you man enough to admit it, or are you going to pull
> a "Fred Stone," up to & including flinging (unsupported)
> charges at everyone who disagrees with you?
Twice != "countless".
Plus, I answered the one you replied to me with and you never
responded to me. You have once again refused to debate me here by
cutting out all of my arguments. And if I were you, I wouldn't throw
around the "flinging (unsupported) charges" accusation around. You're
the king of unsupported charges around here lately.
So go ahead and prove you're up to the task of debating me seriously
and honestly by going back and responding to my arguments. I've
already done my part.
--
Bushism 3-16:
"These people don't have tanks. They don't have ships. They hide in
caves. They send suiciders out."
--Speaking about the terrorists; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; November 1, 2002
JTEM
> Twice != "countless".
No, retard, but it DOES MEAN that I'm not going to dig up
several months worth of posts, and re-post them in a new
thread, just because you're a fucking idiot with A.D.D. A
few examples is good enough, as it's all it takes to disprove
you.
Surprised? I'll bet....
Bill Baker
news:<563c9b13-1620-4bfd...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
No, actually I'm not surprised that you refuse to debate me and continue to
drag out arguments that I've answered many times.
--
Bushism 10-24:
"There is book smart and the kind of smart that helps do calculus. But
smart is also instinct and judgment and common sense. Smart comes in all
kinds of different ways."
--CNN; September 19, 2000
JTEM
> No, actually I'm not surprised that you refuse to debate
> me
Huh?
You spill ad hominem and wild accusations, and I prove
you wrong.
A debate takes two, dickweed, and you're not holding up
your end of the bargain...
Obama lied about helping out his indicted pal, Rezko:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
Bill Baker
news:<bcddd1aa-1299-4a3f...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> No, actually I'm not surprised that you refuse to debate
>> me
>
> Huh?
>
> You spill ad hominem and wild accusations, and I prove
> you wrong.
You're the one spilling ad hominem and wild accusations, and you haven't
proved a damn thing yet.
> A debate takes two, dickweed, and you're not holding up
> your end of the bargain...
I've held up my end of the bargain. Are you ever going to?
> Obama lied about helping out his indicted pal, Rezko:
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
And Hillary lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. So what? That
doesn't make him unelectable.
--
Bushism 10-10:
"Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard
much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please
come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who
are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the
information--outside the administration."
--Chicago, Illinois; September 30, 2003
JTEM
> You're the one spilling ad hominem and wild accusations,
Obama lied about attending a Rezko party with indicted
Iraqi-born billionaire:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article
> I've held up my end of the bargain.
You keep the spew coming, but like Obama you never have
any substance...
Funny, but a year before Obama claimed he didn't know about
his "Spiritual Advisor's" racial issues -- the Rev.Wright -- his
"Spiritual Advisor's" racial issues were already old news, including
to Obama:
: Mr. Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate who says
: he was only shielding his pastor from the spotlight,
Gee, I wonder why....
: said he respected Mr. Wright’s work for the poor and his fight
: against injustice. But “we don’t agree on everything,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
Do the google thing on Wright, the Trinity church and Obama,
and limit yourself to 2007. The hits begin in January and never
stop.
Wright went on Fox "news" and spewed his bullshit. The
transcript is online. And another story documented Obama's
attendence at a July of 2007 Sermon when Wright was
dishing out the crap.
He lied. Obama boldly & repeatedly lied. In fact, he has never
once told the truth. Not about Wright, not about Rezko, not
about influence peddling and not about NAFTA.
I can't identify ANYTHING which he hasn't lied about.
> And Hillary lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia.
No, that was an admitted error -- something Obama
says WAS NOT the case in all the above examples I
just gave.
What does Obama say was an error? His bribe from
Rezko when they did the land deal. Obama admits
THAT was a mistake.
Go on, hold Obama to the same standard you hold Hillary.
Can you? Of course not. You're not ethical enough...
Bill Baker
news:<97382818-7e1d-4564...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> You're the one spilling ad hominem and wild accusations,
>
> Obama lied about attending a Rezko party with indicted
> Iraqi-born billionaire:
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article
His campaign said they "have no recollection of attending any such event"
which may or may not be a lie. Even so, that does not make him
unelectable.
>> I've held up my end of the bargain.
>
> You keep the spew coming, but like Obama you never have
> any substance...
Ah, well, I can say the same for you.
> Funny, but a year before Obama claimed he didn't know about
> his "Spiritual Advisor's" racial issues -- the Rev.Wright -- his
> "Spiritual Advisor's" racial issues were already old news, including
> to Obama:
>
> : Mr. Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate who says
> : he was only shielding his pastor from the spotlight,
>
> Gee, I wonder why....
>
> : said he respected Mr. Wright’s work for the poor and his fight
> : against injustice. But “we don’t agree on everything,”
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
>
> Do the google thing on Wright, the Trinity church and Obama,
> and limit yourself to 2007. The hits begin in January and never
> stop.
>
> Wright went on Fox "news" and spewed his bullshit. The
> transcript is online. And another story documented Obama's
> attendence at a July of 2007 Sermon when Wright was
> dishing out the crap.
Frankly, I don't see the big deal about Rev. Wright everyone else does. He
had the courage to speak truths in his "God damn America" sermon that a lot
of people wouldn't like to hear. I think he said those outrageous things
on TV just to give Obama the opportunity to renounce him, as he likely felt
(as many including myself did) the whole thing had gone on long enough.
And now most voters are satisfied that Obama has put the issue behind him
according to polls.
> He lied. Obama boldly & repeatedly lied. In fact, he has never
> once told the truth. Not about Wright, not about Rezko, not
> about influence peddling and not about NAFTA.
>
> I can't identify ANYTHING which he hasn't lied about.
Here you go:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/true/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/mostly-true/
>> And Hillary lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia.
>
> No, that was an admitted error -- something Obama
> says WAS NOT the case in all the above examples I
> just gave.
She only admitted to the error after she was caught in the lie. A lie, by
the way that she had repeated no less than four times.
> What does Obama say was an error? His bribe from
> Rezko when they did the land deal. Obama admits
> THAT was a mistake.
>
> Go on, hold Obama to the same standard you hold Hillary.
I do. I don't think either of those issues are important enough to be held
against either candidate.
> Can you? Of course not. You're not ethical enough...
Now let's see you hold Hillary to the same standard you hold Obama. Bet you
can't.
--
Bushism 12-29:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee--that says, Fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you
can't get fooled again."
--Nashville, Tennessee; September 17, 2002
DanielSan
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> You're the one spilling ad hominem and wild accusations,
>
> Obama lied about attending a Rezko party with indicted
> Iraqi-born billionaire:
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article
Did Obama do anything improper?
>
>> I've held up my end of the bargain.
>
> You keep the spew coming, but like Obama you never have
> any substance...
>
> Funny, but a year before Obama claimed he didn't know about
> his "Spiritual Advisor's" racial issues -- the Rev.Wright -- his
> "Spiritual Advisor's" racial issues were already old news, including
> to Obama:
>
> : Mr. Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate who says
> : he was only shielding his pastor from the spotlight,
>
> Gee, I wonder why....
>
> : said he respected Mr. Wright’s work for the poor and his fight
> : against injustice. But “we don’t agree on everything,”
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
>
> Do the google thing on Wright, the Trinity church and Obama,
> and limit yourself to 2007. The hits begin in January and never
> stop.
>
> Wright went on Fox "news" and spewed his bullshit. The
> transcript is online. And another story documented Obama's
> attendence at a July of 2007 Sermon when Wright was
> dishing out the crap.
Cite?
>
> He lied. Obama boldly & repeatedly lied. In fact, he has never
> once told the truth. Not about Wright, not about Rezko, not
> about influence peddling and not about NAFTA.
Except that even the Canadian Government is denying it.
>
> I can't identify ANYTHING which he hasn't lied about.
What, exactly, is your problem with Obama?
>
>> And Hillary lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia.
>
> No, that was an admitted error -- something Obama
> says WAS NOT the case in all the above examples I
> just gave.
>
> What does Obama say was an error? His bribe from
> Rezko when they did the land deal. Obama admits
> THAT was a mistake.
It was not a bribe.
>
> Go on, hold Obama to the same standard you hold Hillary.
>
> Can you? Of course not. You're not ethical enough...
>
Can you?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I do not believe in God because I do not *
* believe in Mother Goose." *
* --Clarence Darrow, 1925 *
****************************************************
JTEM
> > Obama lied about attending a Rezko party with indicted
> > Iraqi-born billionaire:
>
> >http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article
>
> His campaign said they "have no recollection of attending
> any such event"
Yeah, he lied.
> > You keep the spew coming, but like Obama you never have
> > any substance...
>
> Ah, well, I can say the same for you.
Ironically, this coming in reply to a post of mine with MULTIPLE
cites....
You're either dishonest or every bit the screwball as a
WMD-seeing neo-con.
> Frankly, I don't see the big deal about Rev. Wright everyone
> else does.
Especially the fact that it proves that he's a lying hypocrite...
Q: When did the Obama camp STOP smearing Geraldine
Ferraro as racist -- and Hillary as a vicarious racist -- over
Ferraro's remarks?
A: Only when Rev. Wright was exposed as a professional
racist.
Q: When has Obama told the truth about Wright?
A: Never. He's lied at every opportunity.
> > He lied. Obama boldly & repeatedly lied. In fact, he has never
> > once told the truth. Not about Wright, not about Rezko, not
> > about influence peddling and not about NAFTA.
>
> > I can't identify ANYTHING which he hasn't lied about.
>
> Here you go:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/st...http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/st...
Well, thanks for PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT that
Obama has ALWAYS been attacking Hillary, despite his
lies to the contrary.
Obama's attack campaign, as you documented, reaches
AT LEAST as far back as August of 2007.
You've certainly proved that he's a lying sack of shit for
pretending he wasn't into attack politics...
OOPS!
Did I say August? Oh, dear me... that was BEFORE I
checked the second link, and discovered that you have
documented the fact that Obama's negative campaigning
started AT LEAST two months before that....
> > No, that was an admitted error -- something Obama
> > says WAS NOT the case in all the above examples I
> > just gave.
>
> She only admitted to the error after she was caught
> in the lie.
Or, as they outside the Obama smear machine, "She
corrected her error when it was pointed out to her, and
not before."
If you Obamanations weren't mired in negative campaigning
you might've thought of that one yourself... asshole.
> > What does Obama say was an error? His bribe from
> > Rezko when they did the land deal. Obama admits
> > THAT was a mistake.
>
> > Go on, hold Obama to the same standard you hold Hillary.
>
> I do.
So you don't have a problem with bribery, huh?
> Now let's see you hold Hillary to the same standard you
> hold Obama.
I already do.
> Bet you can't.
It's called "transference," and you're doing it now...
DanielSan
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>>> Obama lied about attending a Rezko party with indicted
>>> Iraqi-born billionaire:
>>> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article
>> His campaign said they "have no recollection of attending
>> any such event"
>
> Yeah, he lied.
You have evidence for that?
JTEM
DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > Obama lied about attending a Rezko party with indicted
> > Iraqi-born billionaire:
>
> >http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article
>
> Did Obama do anything improper?
It certainly appears that way, yes.
The Iraqi-British billionaire gave Rezko $3.5 million after that,
and it appears that Obama's presence helped. It showed the
billionaire -- who was looking for political favors -- just how
well connected Rezko was.
> > Do the google thing on Wright, the Trinity church and Obama,
> > and limit yourself to 2007. The hits begin in January and never
> > stop.
Apparently that was too confusing for the Obamanations, whose
brains don't work very well...
> > Wright went on Fox "news" and spewed his bullshit. The
> > transcript is online. And another story documented Obama's
> > attendence at a July of 2007 Sermon when Wright was
> > dishing out the crap.
>
> Cite?
Already provided in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/b698090599d26238?dmode=source
> > He lied. Obama boldly & repeatedly lied. In fact, he has never
> > once told the truth. Not about Wright, not about Rezko, not
> > about influence peddling and not about NAFTA.
>
> Except that even the Canadian Government is denying it.
Not on this planet:
: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday called
: the memo’s leak “completely unacceptable,” and vowed his
: government would find out who was responsible.
:
: “The Canadian Embassy in Washington expressed it’s
: apologies regarding the leaking of this information,” Harper
: said in Parliament. “The government is trying to find who’s
: responsible for this information being made public.”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/05/canadian-government-to-probe-leak-of-obama-memo/
don't like Fox? Me either. Here's the exact same story, with
one slight change. See, in THIS story, the conservative
Canadian government is accused of leaking the memo to
help Hillary instead of the conservative Republican candidate
(McCain):
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/05/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Obama-Trade.php
Both add up to the same thing: You're lying again.
> What, exactly, is your problem with Obama?
Besides the fact that I don't believe the lesson of the Bush
years is that experience doesn't count?
Well, there's the fact that the exact same forces which were
behind Bush are now behind Obama.
Were you thinking it all worked out so well with Bush?
Then there's the obvious election irregularities... the party
elite (who all just happen to be pro-Obama) decide to
take away Florida's delegates because the Republicans
moved Florida's primary date, and wouldn't move it back?
What limited success Obama has enjoyed is entirely owed
to that ONE move right there....
It made Obama the front runner, would he would have been
in distant second otherwise.
> It was not a bribe.
The bribe was not a bribe....
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>
>>> Obama lied about attending a Rezko party with indicted
>>> Iraqi-born billionaire:
>>> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article
>> Did Obama do anything improper?
>
> It certainly appears that way, yes.
>
> The Iraqi-British billionaire gave Rezko $3.5 million after that,
> and it appears that Obama's presence helped. It showed the
> billionaire -- who was looking for political favors -- just how
> well connected Rezko was.
So, what did Obama do that was improper?
>
>>> Do the google thing on Wright, the Trinity church and Obama,
>>> and limit yourself to 2007. The hits begin in January and never
>>> stop.
>
> Apparently that was too confusing for the Obamanations, whose
> brains don't work very well...
>
>>> Wright went on Fox "news" and spewed his bullshit. The
>>> transcript is online. And another story documented Obama's
>>> attendence at a July of 2007 Sermon when Wright was
>>> dishing out the crap.
>> Cite?
>
> Already provided in this post:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/b698090599d26238?dmode=source
....wait, NewsMax is your source?
BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAAHAHAHA!!!!
>
>>> He lied. Obama boldly & repeatedly lied. In fact, he has never
>>> once told the truth. Not about Wright, not about Rezko, not
>>> about influence peddling and not about NAFTA.
>> Except that even the Canadian Government is denying it.
>
> Not on this planet:
>
> : Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday called
> : the memo�s leak �completely unacceptable,� and vowed his
> : government would find out who was responsible.
> :
> : �The Canadian Embassy in Washington expressed it�s
> : apologies regarding the leaking of this information,� Harper
> : said in Parliament. �The government is trying to find who�s
> : responsible for this information being made public.�
>
> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/05/canadian-government-to-probe-leak-of-obama-memo/
>
> don't like Fox? Me either. Here's the exact same story, with
> one slight change. See, in THIS story, the conservative
> Canadian government is accused of leaking the memo to
> help Hillary instead of the conservative Republican candidate
> (McCain):
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/05/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Obama-Trade.php
"Goolsbee said his comments [in the memo] were misinterpreted, and Obama
denied offering the Canadians any such ideas. "Nobody reached out to the
Canadians to try to assure them of anything," Obama told reporters
Monday in Carrollton, Texas."
>
> Both add up to the same thing: You're lying again.
>
>> What, exactly, is your problem with Obama?
>
> Besides the fact that I don't believe the lesson of the Bush
> years is that experience doesn't count?
>
> Well, there's the fact that the exact same forces which were
> behind Bush are now behind Obama.
Like...? You do realize that there is a massive smear campaign against
Obama, right?
>
> Were you thinking it all worked out so well with Bush?
>
> Then there's the obvious election irregularities... the party
> elite (who all just happen to be pro-Obama)
Before Obama was even known?
> decide to
> take away Florida's delegates because the Republicans
> moved Florida's primary date, and wouldn't move it back?
Yes.
>
> What limited success Obama has enjoyed is entirely owed
> to that ONE move right there....
That happened BEFORE the campaign season started.
>
> It made Obama the front runner, would he would have been
> in distant second otherwise.
How do you know?
>
>> It was not a bribe.
>
> The bribe was not a bribe....
>
It was not a bribe. At all.
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
> ....wait, NewsMax is your source?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAAHAHAHA!!!!
Wait a minute. You're saying that it's proof-positive of
precognition?
Because, how else could newsmax know about Rev. Wrights
overt racism in August of 2007, MORE THAN SEVEN MONTHS
BEFORE THE STORY BROKE?
Now, me, being slightly more skeptical than you are, I did the
Google thing -- limiting my searches to 2007 -- and found no
shortage of articles on the subject of Rev. Wright's racism, or
questions surrounding his Trinity church.
So, naturally, I just figured that the Rev. Wright's racism was
well documented back then -- in 2007 -- and that Obama was
lying.
But you, well, you claim that newsmax had no fax to report....
Well you certainly can't be claiming that they simply GUESSED
that racism would one day surface around the Rev Wright, so
you obviously believe in precognition.
Well, state your case.
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>
>> ....wait, NewsMax is your source?
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> Wait a minute. You're saying that it's proof-positive of
> precognition?
>
> Because, how else could newsmax know about Rev. Wrights
> overt racism in August of 2007, MORE THAN SEVEN MONTHS
> BEFORE THE STORY BROKE?
Because the story didn't break then? It was only popularized seven
months later?
>
> Now, me, being slightly more skeptical than you are, I did the
> Google thing -- limiting my searches to 2007 -- and found no
> shortage of articles on the subject of Rev. Wright's racism, or
> questions surrounding his Trinity church.
>
> So, naturally, I just figured that the Rev. Wright's racism was
> well documented back then -- in 2007 -- and that Obama was
> lying.
>
> But you, well, you claim that newsmax had no fax to report....
Newsmax claimed that he was in the audience on July 22, 2007. I want to
see the evidence for that claim.
>
> Well you certainly can't be claiming that they simply GUESSED
> that racism would one day surface around the Rev Wright, so
> you obviously believe in precognition.
>
> Well, state your case.
>
I claim no such thing and I'll thank you for not putting words into my
mouth in the future.
JTEM
> So, what did Obama do that was improper?
Wow, you really are ignorant! And you support Obama!
No surprise there....
Let's see... Rezko -- the guy indicted for shaking down
businesses for kick-backs and campaign contributions --
ponied up AT THE LEAST $250,000 in campaign
contributions for Obama... we don't know the exact figure,
because it's already changed multiple times... each time
with it growing significantly...
Anyhow, the guy who was shaking down businesses for
campaign contributions -- and feeding Obama campaign
contributions -- is known to have a *Very* long and *Very*
close relationship with Obama, both professionally and
personally.
Obama is known to have performed political favors for
Rezko, for example, despite Obama lying and saying
that he didn't.
And, in addition to all the campaign contributions, Rezsko's
money benefited Obama other ways... like the sweet land
deal.
So, anyhow, this Iraqi-British billionaire is shopping for some
political favors in the U.S. meets Obama at Rezko's party.
And then, yes, and then later the billionaire cuts Rezko a
whopping huge check for $3.5 million.
Without Rezko Obama was nobody, and without Obama
Rezko had no clout. Saying "I know the next Senator from
Illinois" might impress the chix down at the bar, but a shrewed
billionaire wants something a bit stronger than that... like the
absolute proof of being able to get Obama in his home on
short notice, pressing the flesh and acknowledging that Rezko
is a "Close friend."
There's no deal without it!
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, what did Obama do that was improper?
>
> Wow, you really are ignorant! And you support Obama!
>
> No surprise there....
>
> Let's see... Rezko -- the guy indicted for shaking down
> businesses for kick-backs and campaign contributions --
> ponied up AT THE LEAST $250,000 in campaign
> contributions for Obama... we don't know the exact figure,
> because it's already changed multiple times... each time
> with it growing significantly...
As frequently happens with a lie.
>
> Anyhow, the guy who was shaking down businesses for
> campaign contributions -- and feeding Obama campaign
> contributions -- is known to have a *Very* long and *Very*
> close relationship with Obama, both professionally and
> personally.
So, guilt by association? Obama is guilty of what Rezko did because
they knew each other?
>
> Obama is known to have performed political favors for
> Rezko, for example, despite Obama lying and saying
> that he didn't.
For example?
>
> And, in addition to all the campaign contributions, Rezsko's
> money benefited Obama other ways... like the sweet land
> deal.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
>
> So, anyhow, this Iraqi-British billionaire is shopping for some
> political favors in the U.S. meets Obama at Rezko's party.
> And then, yes, and then later the billionaire cuts Rezko a
> whopping huge check for $3.5 million.
>
> Without Rezko Obama was nobody, and without Obama
> Rezko had no clout. Saying "I know the next Senator from
> Illinois" might impress the chix down at the bar, but a shrewed
> billionaire wants something a bit stronger than that... like the
> absolute proof of being able to get Obama in his home on
> short notice, pressing the flesh and acknowledging that Rezko
> is a "Close friend."
>
> There's no deal without it!
>
So, Obama is guilty for knowing a criminal.
JTEM
> You have evidence for that?
Ironically, I count six cites that I've posted in this thread
(with one of them leading to multiple cites) and not one
posted by you.... less than one... zero... zip... nil...
DanielSan
I don't need to. I'm not the one making the claim. All you can do is
to post blogs and spin.
...just like Fred Stone.
Are you actually a neocon disguising yourself as a liberal?
Bill Baker
news:<24d0a44e-13f2-4204...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> > Obama lied about attending a Rezko party with indicted
>> > Iraqi-born billionaire:
>>
>> >http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article
>>
>> His campaign said they "have no recollection of attending
>> any such event"
>
> Yeah, he lied.
Prove it's a lie.
>> > You keep the spew coming, but like Obama you never have
>> > any substance...
>>
>> Ah, well, I can say the same for you.
>
> Ironically, this coming in reply to a post of mine with MULTIPLE
> cites....
>
> You're either dishonest or every bit the screwball as a
> WMD-seeing neo-con.
And here comes the ad hominem again. You just can't have a reasonable
discussion, can you?
>> Frankly, I don't see the big deal about Rev. Wright everyone
>> else does.
>
> Especially the fact that it proves that he's a lying hypocrite...
>
> Q: When did the Obama camp STOP smearing Geraldine
> Ferraro as racist -- and Hillary as a vicarious racist -- over
> Ferraro's remarks?
>
> A: Only when Rev. Wright was exposed as a professional
> racist.
I think Wright "exposed" himself as a professional racist so that Obama
could publicly denounce him. He threw himself under the bus for Obama.
> Q: When has Obama told the truth about Wright?
>
> A: Never. He's lied at every opportunity.
>
>> > He lied. Obama boldly & repeatedly lied. In fact, he has never
>> > once told the truth. Not about Wright, not about Rezko, not
>> > about influence peddling and not about NAFTA.
>>
>> > I can't identify ANYTHING which he hasn't lied about.
>>
>> Here you
>>
go:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/st...http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/st...
>
> Well, thanks for PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT that
> Obama has ALWAYS been attacking Hillary, despite his
> lies to the contrary.
>
> Obama's attack campaign, as you documented, reaches
> AT LEAST as far back as August of 2007.
>
> You've certainly proved that he's a lying sack of shit for
> pretending he wasn't into attack politics...
>
> OOPS!
>
> Did I say August? Oh, dear me... that was BEFORE I
> checked the second link, and discovered that you have
> documented the fact that Obama's negative campaigning
> started AT LEAST two months before that....
So telling the truth about Hillary is somehow an "attack campaign"? It
sounds more like he's trying to point out the differences between them. If
you think that sounds like attacking, that's your business. But don't try
to feed me a shit sandwich and tell me it's tuna fish.
>> > No, that was an admitted error -- something Obama
>> > says WAS NOT the case in all the above examples I
>> > just gave.
>>
>> She only admitted to the error after she was caught
>> in the lie.
>
> Or, as they outside the Obama smear machine, "She
> corrected her error when it was pointed out to her, and
> not before."
Yeah, that might be a good way to spin it.
> If you Obamanations weren't mired in negative campaigning
> you might've thought of that one yourself... asshole.
Everyone in this race is mired in negative campaigning.
>> > What does Obama say was an error? His bribe from
>> > Rezko when they did the land deal. Obama admits
>> > THAT was a mistake.
>>
>> > Go on, hold Obama to the same standard you hold Hillary.
>>
>> I do.
>
> So you don't have a problem with bribery, huh?
Prove he ever took part in any bribery.
>> Now let's see you hold Hillary to the same standard you
>> hold Obama.
>
> I already do.
No you don't. You attack Obama at every turn. When have you ever attacked
Hillary with the ferocity you focus on Obama?
>>Bet you can't.
>
> It's called "transference," and you're doing it now...
How can I transfer something I don't have and you obviously do?
--
Bushism 11-13:
"Governor Bush will not stand for the subsidation of failure."
--Florence, South Carolina; January 11, 2000
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
> > Ironically, I count six cites that I've posted in this thread
> > (with one of them leading to multiple cites) and not one
> > posted by you.... less than one... zero... zip... nil...
>
> I don't need to.
Hypocrite.
DanielSan
You're posting to alt.atheism, correct? You know how it works, right?
The claimant must provide the evidence. The disclaimant doesn't.
JTEM
> You're posting to alt.atheism, correct? You know how it
> works, right?
Yes. "Michelle Malkin" goes on anti-Hillary tirades, frequently
lying, and nobody so much as blinks, because the meta-truth
is just so gosh darn important.
....or is it because being popular is more important than truth?
Anyhow, so I try to be the equal opposite -- anti-Obama
Tirades where I don't lie, actually SUPPORT everything I
say -- and you all lose bowl control.
Is that how it "works"?
It sounds to me like that's how it STOPS working...
JTEM
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> Prove it's a lie.
I proved he's a liar.
I proved that he knew all about the Rev. Wright thing well
over a year before he claimed he had been in the dark.
And I also proved he has been lying from the beginning
about Rezko... non-stop.
And he lied about NAFTA.
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You're posting to alt.atheism, correct? You know how it
>> works, right?
>
> Yes. "Michelle Malkin" goes on anti-Hillary tirades, frequently
> lying, and nobody so much as blinks, because the meta-truth
> is just so gosh darn important.
Really? Where has she lied?
>
> ....or is it because being popular is more important than truth?
>
> Anyhow, so I try to be the equal opposite -- anti-Obama
> Tirades where I don't lie, actually SUPPORT everything I
> say -- and you all lose bowl control.
Dream on. I'm not even close to angry. And your cites don't show what
you say.
>
> Is that how it "works"?
No. You've shown nothing except unbelievable hatred towards a
Democratic candidate, ignoring all cites which you disagree with. You
attack Obama for following the rules when you should be attacking
Charlie Crist. You attack Michelle Malkin for having a different
opinion than you. You attack me, towelie, and others who also have
different opinions than you.
You have shown that you are an erratic individual with extreme disregard
for the rules ONLY when it harms your candidate.
And somehow, we're wrong.
>
> It sounds to me like that's how it STOPS working...
>
Yes.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for *
* a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord *
* doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked *
* Him to forgive me." --Emo Philips *
****************************************************
DanielSan
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> Prove it's a lie.
>
> I proved he's a liar.
>
> I proved that he knew all about the Rev. Wright thing well
> over a year before he claimed he had been in the dark.
No, you didn't.
>
> And I also proved he has been lying from the beginning
> about Rezko... non-stop.
No, you didn't.
>
> And he lied about NAFTA.
>
No, you didn't.
You provided right wing talking point websites, not proof. I bet you
think that he attended a madrassa, too.
JTEM
> > Yes. "Michelle Malkin" goes on anti-Hillary tirades, frequently
> > lying, and nobody so much as blinks, because the meta-truth
> > is just so gosh darn important.
>
> Really? Where has she lied?
Besides claiming that every genuine issue that requires
vetting is an anti-Obama smear we must blame Hillary
for, there's the one example I've already rasied about 50
times without you once taking note:
: then it turns out that it wasn't an
: Obama worker who spoke to the Canadians about NAFTA;
: it was a Clinton worker! She had to know this before the
: four state primaries, but she kept silent about it.. How can
: anyone still back her?!
That's an EXACT quote, a copy & paste job! She lied. She
blatently lied.
Again, that was FAR from the only example. As I said, there
were countless examples of it smearing Hillary over Obama's
faults.
But, why bother? You can't deny that I brought up the NAFTA
example. You not only read it in the past but replied to it.
Again, you don't give a shit about the truth. You know Malkin
is a lying sack of shit and you don't care.
....why else would you play this game?
And don't pretend it isn't a game and that you're not playing.
The last time you responded to the example of Malkin lying
about Obama & NAFTA you raised a cite which got every
important fact wrong -- like WHERE the story came from, and
the fact that NOBODY denied that Obama's man was in
contact with the Canadian government, including Obama!
Seriously, are Obamanation so frigging ignorant that they can't
figure these things out for themselves?
You didn't know it was the AP who broke the story, "Made
the claims," and not a Hillary spokesperson? You didn't know
that the Obama camp NEVER DENIED they were in contact
with the Canadian government? The so-called "cite" honestly
fooled you?
Damn, there should be an I.Q. test for voters....
JTEM
> > I proved he's a liar.
>
> > I proved that he knew all about the Rev. Wright thing well
> > over a year before he claimed he had been in the dark.
>
> No, you didn't.
Well, the last time you lied your sorry ass off claiming something
like this I posted a link to a post where I provided all the cites...
Demonstrating that you were lying.
But that was *Way* back on May 10, and here it is May 11...
Wait a minute! You're a filthy lying skank, aren't you? It's not
just an act! You keep making THE EXACT SAME CLAIMS
even when it has been proven -- with cites -- that they are false.
You know what this means, don't you? It means you have to
compare me to "Fred Stone," again. Because you KNOW
someone is acting exactly like him, and you could never be
man enough to admit that it's you...
Anyhow, here's the post I was speaking about:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/4d0e3bb1bcfb1736?dmode=source
Alternative, seeing how IT WAS POSTED TO THIS VERY
THREAD YESTERDAY, you could just borow some ethics
and admit that you're lying.
Don't worry though, none of the other Obama supporters
are big enough to acknowledge your dishonesty. You'll
be as impressive in their eyes as ever.
> > And I also proved he has been lying from the beginning
> > aboutRezko... non-stop.
>
> No, you didn't.
This was the cite I've already offered several times in the past:
: As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city
: and state officials supporting his political patron Tony
: Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from
: taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
There. Obama lied. He said he didn't do Rezko any favors,
and he did. Worse yet, he left a paper trail.
Don't worry though, you will continue to lie and pretend that
these cites don't exist. Bush....errr....Obama sucks so bad
that you neo-cons...errrr...latte liberals can't admit any truth,
because one the water squeezes through the cracks it's only
a matter of time before the dam goes...
Congratulations, "Fred"....errr... whatever.
> > And he lied about NAFTA.
>
> No, you didn't.
See the first link, the one to the post INSIDE THIS VERY THREAD.
You know, the one POSTED YESTERDAY.
Here, I'll copy & paste the relevant part (as, on Google groups,
it's a whole two posts down):
<Quote>
: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday called
: the memo’s leak “completely unacceptable,” and vowed his
: government would find out who was responsible.
:
: “The Canadian Embassy in Washington expressed it’s
: apologies regarding the leaking of this information,” Harper
: said in Parliament. “The government is trying to find who’s
: responsible for this information being made public.”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/05/canadian-government-to-probe-...
don't like Fox? Me either. Here's the exact same story, with
one slight change. See, in THIS story, the conservative
Canadian government is accused of leaking the memo to
help Hillary instead of the conservative Republican candidate
(McCain):
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/05/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Obama...
Both add up to the same thing: You're lying again.
</unQuote>
There you, you worthless fucking neo-con...
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
> > And I also proved he has been lying from the beginning
> > aboutRezko... non-stop.
>
> No, you didn't.
Well you clearly can't see any of the cites I've already
produced, so I did the 30-second Google thing and
found tens of thousands of cites that you would have
found yourself, if you honestly gave a shit about the
truth.
Here's a good one:
: ABCNews.com Review Shows an Additional $100,000
: in Rezko-Linked Contributions Not Returned by the
: Campaign
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4192358
How can that be? Obama claimed that he purged his
campaign of all the ill-gotten cash!
But, WAIT! The story is already OUT OF DATE. It was
printed in January, back when they were just finding out
that Obama had been lying about how much money was
involved:
: "We have returned any money that we know was
: associated to Mr. Rezko," Obama told Diane Sawyer
: on Wednesday morning during an appearance on "Good
: Morning America."
How much money was Obama actually getting rid of? The
story does go on to say:
: The Obama campaign says it has given away more than
: $85,000 in Rezko-linked contributions since Rezko was
: indicted on federal fraud and extortion charges in the fall
: of 2006.
But, when this story was written --back in January -- they
had just dsicovered that OBAMA LIED and the real figure
was at least $100,000 more than that.
But even THAT was the whole story. See, SIX MONTHS
earlier they already knew that Obama was lying, and
Obama refused to come out with the truth.
: During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has
: received nearly three times more campaign cash from
: indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates
: than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago
: Sun-Times has found.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article
So it was known AT LEAST since June of 2007 that
Obama was lying... Obama was still lying as of January
of 2008... these things are documented by the above
cites... and finally in March of 2008 we have:
: Obama Elaborates on Rezko Relationship
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/obama-elaborates-on-rezko-relationship/
Oh, Obama "Elaborates." Meaning: The sack of shit has
been lying all along, and finally reached a point where it
was hard for even his supporters to swallow his version.
Oh. Rezko was indicted for shaking down busniesses
for kick-backs and political contributions. Guess who
got those political contributions. Did you guess? Go on,
take a wild stab at it.
I wonder if you knew "Corruption" was what he meant by
"Change"....
Richo
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're posting to alt.atheism, correct? You know how it
> > works, right?
>
> Yes. "Michelle Malkin" goes on anti-Hillary tirades, frequently
> lying, and nobody so much as blinks, because the meta-truth
> is just so gosh darn important.
Actually Raven and several others told her that she was being too one
sided.
She (and you) have been urged to take a balanced, reasoned and
proportional look at the actual evidence and the actual performance of
both candidates.
Mark.
JTEM
> Actually Raven and several others told her that she was
> being too one sided.
Raven doesn't count, as he's a Hillary supporter.
> She (and you) have been urged to take a balanced,
> reasoned and proportional look at the actual evidence
> and the actual performance of both candidates.
I have never said anything about Obama that I couldn't
support with cites. I will not lie, I promise you that, and
I'll cut back on my replies. They won't vanish overnight,
but they will dwindle down to zero.
How's that?
And, oh, any more blatent lies from Malkin (or the gang),
or subject lines like her "Any Democrat For President
But Hillary" (posted March 26) and I reserve the right to
respond.
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes. "Michelle Malkin" goes on anti-Hillary tirades, frequently
>>> lying, and nobody so much as blinks, because the meta-truth
>>> is just so gosh darn important.
>> Really? Where has she lied?
>
> Besides claiming that every genuine issue that requires
> vetting is an anti-Obama smear we must blame Hillary
> for, there's the one example I've already rasied about 50
> times without you once taking note:
>
> : then it turns out that it wasn't an
> : Obama worker who spoke to the Canadians about NAFTA;
> : it was a Clinton worker! She had to know this before the
> : four state primaries, but she kept silent about it.. How can
> : anyone still back her?!
>
> That's an EXACT quote, a copy & paste job! She lied. She
> blatently lied.
Okay, now show how that's a lie.
>
> Again, that was FAR from the only example. As I said, there
> were countless examples of it smearing Hillary over Obama's
> faults.
>
> But, why bother? You can't deny that I brought up the NAFTA
> example. You not only read it in the past but replied to it.
Yes.
>
> Again, you don't give a shit about the truth. You know Malkin
> is a lying sack of shit and you don't care.
Actually, I don't know that.
>
> ....why else would you play this game?
I'm not playing any game. I'm trying to get you to explain yourself.
>
> And don't pretend it isn't a game and that you're not playing.
> The last time you responded to the example of Malkin lying
> about Obama & NAFTA you raised a cite which got every
> important fact wrong -- like WHERE the story came from, and
> the fact that NOBODY denied that Obama's man was in
> contact with the Canadian government, including Obama!
Evidence?
>
> Seriously, are Obamanation so frigging ignorant that they can't
> figure these things out for themselves?
>
> You didn't know it was the AP who broke the story, "Made
> the claims," and not a Hillary spokesperson? You didn't know
> that the Obama camp NEVER DENIED they were in contact
> with the Canadian government?
In relation to Obama being against NAFTA only for political gain?
> The so-called "cite" honestly
> fooled you?
>
> Damn, there should be an I.Q. test for voters....
>
You would fail.
Miserably.
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I proved he's a liar.
>>> I proved that he knew all about the Rev. Wright thing well
>>> over a year before he claimed he had been in the dark.
>> No, you didn't.
>
> Well, the last time you lied your sorry ass off claiming something
> like this I posted a link to a post where I provided all the cites...
>
> Demonstrating that you were lying.
>
> But that was *Way* back on May 10, and here it is May 11...
>
> Wait a minute! You're a filthy lying skank, aren't you?
No.
> It's not
> just an act! You keep making THE EXACT SAME CLAIMS
> even when it has been proven -- with cites -- that they are false.
No.
>
> You know what this means, don't you? It means you have to
> compare me to "Fred Stone," again.
You started it.
> Because you KNOW
> someone is acting exactly like him, and you could never be
> man enough to admit that it's you...
Moron.
>
> Anyhow, here's the post I was speaking about:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4380122&page=1
Didn't you just say that Obama never denied it? Now you post a cite
that says he denied it?
"NOBODY denied that Obama's man was in contact with the Canadian
government, including Obama!" You, from 22 minutes prior to the post
I'm responding to here.
>
> Alternative, seeing how IT WAS POSTED TO THIS VERY
> THREAD YESTERDAY, you could just borow some ethics
> and admit that you're lying.
Well, just as soon as I lie, I'll admit to it. Until that time,
however, I will not admit to something I haven't done.
>
> Don't worry though, none of the other Obama supporters
> are big enough to acknowledge your dishonesty. You'll
> be as impressive in their eyes as ever.
>
>>> And I also proved he has been lying from the beginning
>>> aboutRezko... non-stop.
>> No, you didn't.
>
> This was the cite I've already offered several times in the past:
>
> : As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city
> : and state officials supporting his political patron Tony
> : Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from
> : taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
>
> There. Obama lied. He said he didn't do Rezko any favors,
> and he did. Worse yet, he left a paper trail.
And now you'll have to show Obama's words.
>
> Don't worry though, you will continue to lie and pretend that
> these cites don't exist. Bush....errr....Obama sucks so bad
> that you neo-cons...errrr...latte liberals can't admit any truth,
> because one the water squeezes through the cracks it's only
> a matter of time before the dam goes...
>
> Congratulations, "Fred"....errr... whatever.
And JTEM melts down.
>
> > > And he lied about NAFTA.
>> No, you didn't.
>
> See the first link, the one to the post INSIDE THIS VERY THREAD.
> You know, the one POSTED YESTERDAY.
>
> Here, I'll copy & paste the relevant part (as, on Google groups,
> it's a whole two posts down):
>
> <Quote>
> : Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday called
> : the memo’s leak “completely unacceptable,” and vowed his
> : government would find out who was responsible.
> :
> : “The Canadian Embassy in Washington expressed it’s
> : apologies regarding the leaking of this information,” Harper
> : said in Parliament. “The government is trying to find who’s
> : responsible for this information being made public.”
>
> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/05/canadian-government-to-probe-...
>
> don't like Fox? Me either. Here's the exact same story, with
> one slight change. See, in THIS story, the conservative
> Canadian government is accused of leaking the memo to
> help Hillary instead of the conservative Republican candidate
> (McCain):
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/05/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Obama...
>
>
> Both add up to the same thing: You're lying again.
> </unQuote>
>
> There you, you worthless fucking neo-con...
>
http://www.observer.com/2008/goolsbee-denies-canadian-nafta-story
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/canadian-embass.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLCKz-8owY
Idiot.
Bill Baker
news:<ac6119ba-8005-4def...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> Prove it's a lie.
>
> I proved he's a liar.
Even if you had, that doesn't make everything he says a lie.
--
Bushism 4-25:
"I'm so pleased to be able to say hello to Bill Scranton. He's one of the
great Pennsylvania political families."
--Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania; September 15, 2003
JTEM
> Didn't you just say that Obama never denied it?
I said that Obama never denied that his man met with
representatives of the Canadian government.
This is an important point, because not only did your
so-called "cite" incorrectly identify a Hillary spokesperson
as the source, but it denied any contact.
Well, it denied contact by telephone, as if that refuted
anything (nothing in the memo suggested the contact
was made by telephone).
> Now you post a cite that says he denied it?
No, vile cunt, you posted a cite which pretended to refute the
story by claiming that no contact was made. But not only
was there contact between the Obama campaign and the
Canadian government, but nobody denied there was contact.
Not even Obama's campaign.
What Obama's campaign did deny -- lie about -- was what
they said to the Canadians. They didn't deny talking to the
Canadians, they just lied and said that the words were
misrepresented or misunderstood.
JTEM
> > I proved he's a liar.
>
> Even if you had,
"Even if I'm wrong I'm right."
Creationists are the same way. Seems there's nothing that
can dent their faith, either.
Good luck with that. It served "Fred" real well, maybe it'll
do the same for you...
Bill Baker
news:<f5afabb2-96b5-42ef...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> > I proved he's a liar.
>>
>> Even if you had,
>
> "Even if I'm wrong I'm right."
>
> Creationists are the same way. Seems there's nothing that
> can dent their faith, either.
Massive loon projection on your part.
> Good luck with that. It served "Fred" real well, maybe it'll
> do the same for you...
I'm not about to try to find out.
--
Bushism 7-3:
"There are some monuments where the land is so widespread, they just
encompass as much as possible. And the integral part of the--the precious
part, so to speak--I guess all land is precious, but the part that the
people uniformly would not want to spoil, will not be despoiled. But there
are parts of the monument lands where we can explore without affecting the
overall environment."
--Media roundtable; Washington, D.C.; March 13, 2001
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Didn't you just say that Obama never denied it?
>
> I said that Obama never denied that his man met with
> representatives of the Canadian government.
>
> This is an important point, because not only did your
> so-called "cite" incorrectly identify a Hillary spokesperson
> as the source,
It did not.
> but it denied any contact.
It did not.
>
> Well, it denied contact by telephone, as if that refuted
> anything (nothing in the memo suggested the contact
> was made by telephone).
>
>> Now you post a cite that says he denied it?
>
> No, vile cunt*WHACK!*
Okay, that's enough out of you.
If you cannot discuss things like a mature adult, I'm done with you.
Bill Baker
message news:<ENednaa86pOySbrV...@comcast.com>...
> JTEM wrote:
>> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't you just say that Obama never denied it?
>>
>> I said that Obama never denied that his man met with
>> representatives of the Canadian government.
>>
>> This is an important point, because not only did your
>> so-called "cite" incorrectly identify a Hillary spokesperson
>> as the source,
>
> It did not.
>
>> but it denied any contact.
>
> It did not.
>
>>
>> Well, it denied contact by telephone, as if that refuted
>> anything (nothing in the memo suggested the contact
>> was made by telephone).
>>
>>> Now you post a cite that says he denied it?
>>
>> No, vile cunt*WHACK!*
>
> Okay, that's enough out of you.
>
> If you cannot discuss things like a mature adult, I'm done with you.
He's been like this since the beginning of the discussion. He's right and
anyone who disagrees with him gets pelted with ad homs.
An apt description:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm
--
<death09>my girlfriend broke up with me and sent me pix of her and her new
boyfriend in bed
<ktp753>ouch.
<death09>yeah.i sent them to her dad
DanielSan
I was willing to put up with his immaturity for a long time, but I won't
put up with it any more. He has to grow up if he wants to contribute to
a discussion in the future.
Yang, AthD (h.c)
<wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>On Friday 09 May 2008 05:04 pm JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<bcddd1aa-1299-4a3f...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
>
>> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>>
>>> No, actually I'm not surprised that you refuse to debate
>>> me
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> You spill ad hominem and wild accusations, and I prove
>> you wrong.
>
>You're the one spilling ad hominem and wild accusations, and you haven't
>proved a damn thing yet.
>
>> A debate takes two, dickweed, and you're not holding up
>> your end of the bargain...
>
>I've held up my end of the bargain. Are you ever going to?
>
>> Obama lied about helping out his indicted pal, Rezko:
>>
>> http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
>
>And Hillary lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. So what? That
>doesn't make him unelectable.
Obama will the Dem nominee. It's time for HRC to close ranks- I'd be
surprised if she does not by June
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
"FRED STONE YOU GOT PWNED. "
-laleeloolelo <at> yahoo, 12/28/2007
"Face it, Fred, you've been pwn3d."
-Bill Baker, 12/21/2007
Bill Baker
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:<sa0g24lpjbfhenohv...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 17:26:40 -0400, Bill Baker
> <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>>On Friday 09 May 2008 05:04 pm JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:<bcddd1aa-1299-4a3f...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
>>
>>> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, actually I'm not surprised that you refuse to debate
>>>> me
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> You spill ad hominem and wild accusations, and I prove
>>> you wrong.
>>
>>You're the one spilling ad hominem and wild accusations, and you haven't
>>proved a damn thing yet.
>>
>>> A debate takes two, dickweed, and you're not holding up
>>> your end of the bargain...
>>
>>I've held up my end of the bargain. Are you ever going to?
>>
>>> Obama lied about helping out his indicted pal, Rezko:
>>>
>>> http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
>>
>>And Hillary lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. So what? That
>>doesn't make him unelectable.
>
>
> Obama will the Dem nominee. It's time for HRC to close ranks- I'd be
> surprised if she does not by June
Agreed. We need to focus on John McCain and the fact that the media refuses
to call his wife out for not releasing her tax returns, like they did with
Teresa Heinz-Kerry:
http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2008/05/right-wing-magazines-attack-cindy.html
--
Bushism 11-6:
"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."
--As quoted by the New York Daily News; April 23, 2002
Michelle Malkin
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k-WdnQsRiqQCxLrV...@comcast.com...
> JTEM wrote:
>> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're posting to alt.atheism, correct? You know how it
>>> works, right?
>>
>> Yes. "Michelle Malkin" goes on anti-Hillary tirades, frequently
>> lying, and nobody so much as blinks, because the meta-truth
>> is just so gosh darn important.
>
> Really? Where has she lied?
I haven't lied about Clinton at all, and I have also
sent posts about Obama and McCain. I support
the person I am backing, and I print the truth
about those he is running against. You, JTEM, on
the other hand, just make sputtering noises.
>
>>
>> ....or is it because being popular is more important than truth?
>>
>> Anyhow, so I try to be the equal opposite -- anti-Obama
>> Tirades where I don't lie, actually SUPPORT everything I
>> say -- and you all lose bowl control.
>
> Dream on. I'm not even close to angry. And your cites don't show what
> you say.
>
>>
>> Is that how it "works"?
>
> No. You've shown nothing except unbelievable hatred towards a Democratic
> candidate, ignoring all cites which you disagree with. You attack Obama
> for following the rules when you should be attacking Charlie Crist. You
> attack Michelle Malkin for having a different opinion than you. You
> attack me, towelie, and others who also have different opinions than you.
>
> You have shown that you are an erratic individual with extreme disregard
> for the rules ONLY when it harms your candidate.
>
> And somehow, we're wrong.
>
>>
>> It sounds to me like that's how it STOPS working...
>>
>
> Yes.
>
I don't believe that JTEM is a Democrat. He sounds
more like a Republican troll. Not odd, since he is a
troll and always has been. His entire purpose in life
is to argue with people.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis paraphrasing Huey Long
JTEM
> I haven't lied about Clinton at all,
You're a lying sack of shit. Here, allow YOU to prove it:
: then it turns out that it wasn't an
: Obama worker who spoke to the Canadians about NAFTA;
: it was a Clinton worker! She had to know this before the
: four state primaries, but she kept silent about it.. How can
: anyone still back her?!
That's an EXACT quote, a cut & paste of your own words from
your post. You lied your skanky ass off.
It was Obama. It was ALWAYS Obama. Obama told the voters
one thing, he GOT CAUGHT admitting to the Canadian government
that he was lying to to voters when someone in the Canadian
government leaked a memo quoting Obama's representative.
You lied. You're lying now.
And, what's worse, it is SO EASY to prove that you're lying that
if you invested so much as a minute of thought you could have
avoided this.
> and I have also sent posts about Obama and
> McCain.
Also? Meaning, in addition to..... what?
Those posts you just denied typing?
> I support the person I am backing, and I print
> the truth about those he is running against.
Only you've lied repeatedly, and it's easily proven,
BY YOU.
See above. You're welcome.
JTEM
> I was willing to put up with his immaturity for a long time,
Which explains the way you kept denying cites.
You'd say that Obama never lied about, say, the Rev. Wright,
I'd post cites dating back a year demonstrating that Obama
knew for certain about Wright's racism -- proving Obama was
lying when he only recently claimed that it was all news to
him -- and you turn right around and pretend that it never
happened.
Yup. Square-one, with you pretending that Obama never lied...
What's it like supporting someone so bad, so pathetic that
you have to completely re-draw reality in order to justify your
support of him?
It's something that the Bushbots have a lot of experience with...
JTEM
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> Obama will the Dem nominee.
There's certainly no accounting for votes...
> It's time for HRC to close ranks-
Fuck that! It's time for the DNC to admit that they've
been sucker punched by the Reich wing -- yet again --
and that they have to dump Obama.
The best thing that could ever happen to this party is
if they nominated a compromise candidate.
I just Al Gore, or even John Edwards, but it could be
anyone.
Remember those all-mighty rules they used to pretend
Obama was winning? The ones that let them disenfranchise
Florida and Michigan? Those same precious rules allow them
to nominate anybody -- ANYBODY -- in nobody wins the
nomination with the pledged delegates.
Obama can't win the nomination. There isn't enough delegates
left.
So, dump the empty suit and pick a real man. One George
Bush is enough for any country....
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I haven't lied about Clinton at all,
>
> You're a lying sack of shit. Here, allow YOU to prove it:
>
> : then it turns out that it wasn't an
> : Obama worker who spoke to the Canadians about NAFTA;
> : it was a Clinton worker! She had to know this before the
> : four state primaries, but she kept silent about it.. How can
> : anyone still back her?!
>
> That's an EXACT quote, a cut & paste of your own words from
> your post. You lied your skanky ass off.
>
> It was Obama. It was ALWAYS Obama. Obama told the voters
> one thing, he GOT CAUGHT admitting to the Canadian government
> that he was lying to to voters when someone in the Canadian
> government leaked a memo quoting Obama's representative.
A member of the conservative party of Canada "leaked" something he wrote.
Note that the opposition parties of Canada actually accused Harper of
trying to sabotage Obama's campaign.
You, apparently, believe anything a right winger says.
Bill Baker
news:<a50d8cb0-ede7-48d1...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
>
> "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Obama will the Dem nominee.
>
> There's certainly no accounting for votes...
Yeah, how dare Obama get more votes than Hillary! How dare he!
>> It's time for HRC to close ranks-
>
> Fuck that! It's time for the DNC to admit that they've
> been sucker punched by the Reich wing -- yet again --
> and that they have to dump Obama.
Dumping the guy with the most votes and the most delegates would be the
dumbest thing they ever did. They would be handing the election to the
Republicans.
> The best thing that could ever happen to this party is
> if they nominated a compromise candidate.
>
> I just Al Gore, or even John Edwards, but it could be
> anyone.
>
> Remember those all-mighty rules they used to pretend
> Obama was winning? The ones that let them disenfranchise
> Florida and Michigan? Those same precious rules allow them
> to nominate anybody -- ANYBODY -- in nobody wins the
> nomination with the pledged delegates.
>
> Obama can't win the nomination. There isn't enough delegates
> left.
You keep forgetting about the superdelegates.
> So, dump the empty suit and pick a real man. One George
> Bush is enough for any country....
Obama is nothing like George Bush.
--
<@David> Yay I get laid today! Been a month.... needing it by now
<@Sony> ...........
<@Sony> TMI TMI TMI
<@David> Only a few hundred pounds but its better than nothing
<Malpine> Thanks for the info
<@David> eh?
<@David> damn i meant PAID
<@David> I get PAID today
<@David> dammit
Mark K. Bilbo
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes. "Michelle Malkin" goes on anti-Hillary tirades, frequently
>>> lying, and nobody so much as blinks, because the meta-truth
>>> is just so gosh darn important.
>> Really? Where has she lied?
>
> Besides claiming that every genuine issue that requires
> vetting is an anti-Obama smear we must blame Hillary
> for, there's the one example I've already rasied about 50
> times without you once taking note:
>
> : then it turns out that it wasn't an
> : Obama worker who spoke to the Canadians about NAFTA;
> : it was a Clinton worker! She had to know this before the
> : four state primaries, but she kept silent about it.. How can
> : anyone still back her?!
>
> That's an EXACT quote, a copy & paste job! She lied. She
> blatently lied.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=380&sid=1359385
"On Wednesday, the Canadian Press quoted an unidentified source as
saying that [Harper's chief of staff] Brodie made the comment about the
alleged Clinton campaign overture to a crew for Canada's CTV television
network during a press gathering last week to discuss Canada's budget.
According to a person with knowledge of the incident, the source was a
CTV journalist.
"The Canadian Press story said a CTV reporter asked Brodie about remarks
by Clinton and presidential rival Barack Obama that they would seek to
renegotiate NAFTA.
"'He said someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take
it with a grain of salt. ... That someone called us and told us not to
worry,' the journalist quoted Brodie as saying, according to the report."
Now, Harper denies both stories. So you believe that his denial about
Clinton is the truth but his denial about Obama is a lie eh?
Oh and:
"Some Democrats, as well as Canadian opposition parties, have accused
Harper's Conservative government of meddling in the U.S. primary
elections--in which Obama is in a close race with Clinton for the
Democratic Party's nomination."
Harper's *Conservative* government.
Why *is* it that you only believe things conservatives say?
Mark K. Bilbo
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>>> I proved he's a liar.
>> Even if you had,
>
> "Even if I'm wrong I'm right."
Yeah, that's your motto awright...
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Obama will the Dem nominee.
>
> There's certainly no accounting for votes...
>
>> It's time for HRC to close ranks-
>
> Fuck that! It's time for the DNC to admit that they've
> been sucker punched by the Reich wing -- yet again --
> and that they have to dump Obama.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I haven't lied about Clinton at all,
>
> You're a lying sack of shit. Here, allow YOU to prove it:
>
> : then it turns out that it wasn't an
> : Obama worker who spoke to the Canadians about NAFTA;
> : it was a Clinton worker! She had to know this before the
> : four state primaries, but she kept silent about it.. How can
> : anyone still back her?!
>
> That's an EXACT quote, a cut & paste of your own words from
> your post. You lied your skanky ass off.
>
> It was Obama. It was ALWAYS Obama.
<SNIP>
And what about this?
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I haven't lied about Clinton at all,
>
> You're a lying sack of shit. Here, allow YOU to prove it:
>
> : then it turns out that it wasn't an
> : Obama worker who spoke to the Canadians about NAFTA;
> : it was a Clinton worker! She had to know this before the
> : four state primaries, but she kept silent about it.. How can
> : anyone still back her?!
>
> That's an EXACT quote, a cut & paste of your own words from
> your post. You lied your skanky ass off.
>
> It was Obama. It was ALWAYS Obama.
CBC report:
Michelle Malkin
"Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:i8qdnW3vjcj6WLTV...@earthlink.com...
> On Monday 12 May 2008 08:15 pm JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<a50d8cb0-ede7-48d1...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
>
>>
>> "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Obama will the Dem nominee.
>>
>> There's certainly no accounting for votes...
>
> Yeah, how dare Obama get more votes than Hillary! How dare he!
>
>>> It's time for HRC to close ranks-
>>
>> Fuck that! It's time for the DNC to admit that they've
>> been sucker punched by the Reich wing -- yet again --
>> and that they have to dump Obama.
>
> Dumping the guy with the most votes and the most delegates would be the
> dumbest thing they ever did. They would be handing the election to the
> Republicans.
>
>> The best thing that could ever happen to this party is
>> if they nominated a compromise candidate.
>>
>> I just Al Gore, or even John Edwards, but it could be
>> anyone.
>>
>> Remember those all-mighty rules they used to pretend
>> Obama was winning? The ones that let them disenfranchise
>> Florida and Michigan? Those same precious rules allow them
>> to nominate anybody -- ANYBODY -- in nobody wins the
>> nomination with the pledged delegates.
>>
>> Obama can't win the nomination. There isn't enough delegates
>> left.
But, there are.
>
> You keep forgetting about the superdelegates.
Exactly. And the fact that Clinton's superdelegates
have a tendency to switch to supporting Obama.
There are plenty of delegates left with that going on.
Every time she wins, she loses.
JTEM
> >> Obama can't win the nomination. There isn't enough
> >> delegates left.
> But, there are.
Of course there aren't. You're talking about the super
delegates. Ironically, you dirt tracks spent months
accusing Hillary of trying to "Steal" the nomination with
super delegates.... and now you're talking about Obama
"winning" the nomination with super delegates.
Damn, if it weren't for double standards you skunk holes
would have no standards at all....
Bill Baker
news:<02450528-6254-4a7d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>...
No double standards here. We always knew it would likely come down to
superdelegates, and Obama has been the one who is ahead. For Hillary to
win, the superdelegates would have to steal the nomination from Obama who
won more pledged delegates and more popular votes.
Damn, you can't even support Hillary without lying. What was it you were
saying about people who do that?
--
<Sabdo> on one of those speech-to-text programs my friend ripped ass onto
the mic.
<Sabdo> and it typed out "France"
<Sabdo> we were like, wtf?
Yang, AthD (h.c)
That's dumber than the old "Gush and Bore" canard from Ralph Nader.
JTEM
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Of course there aren't. You're talking about the super
> > delegates. Ironically, you dirt tracks spent months
> > accusing Hillary of trying to "Steal" the nomination with
> > super delegates.... and now you're talking about Obama
> > "winning" the nomination with super delegates.
>
> > Damn, if it weren't for double standards you skunk holes
> > would have no standards at all....
>
> No double standards here. We always knew it would likely
> come down to superdelegates,
Okay, so when you Obamanations spent months whining
that Hillary was going to try to take the nomination with
super delegates, what you meant was that Obama is a dumb
cunt for trying to take the nomination with super delegates....
: The Tyranny of Super-Delegates
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/05/6189/
But, most ironic of all is that Obama can't win with the
super delegates UNLESS HE SHITS ON THE VOTERS.
As things stand, the Super Delegates from the states
Hillary won just outnumber the Super Delegates from
the states Obama won, WITHOUT counting Florida and
Michigan.
But why aren't we counting Florida & Michigan? Oh, yes,
because if we did then Obama would have been out of this
thing on Super Tuesday. That's why.
Florida would add another 22 Super Delegates, and
Michigan would add another 28.
That's just in Super Delegates, mind you.
Bill Baker
news:<1d07a21b-bfa5-4d21...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> > Of course there aren't. You're talking about the super
>> > delegates. Ironically, you dirt tracks spent months
>> > accusing Hillary of trying to "Steal" the nomination with
>> > super delegates.... and now you're talking about Obama
>> > "winning" the nomination with super delegates.
>>
>> > Damn, if it weren't for double standards you skunk holes
>> > would have no standards at all....
>>
>> No double standards here. We always knew it would likely
>> come down to superdelegates,
>
> Okay, so when you Obamanations spent months whining
> that Hillary was going to try to take the nomination with
> super delegates, what you meant was that Obama is a dumb
> cunt for trying to take the nomination with super delegates....
Wrong, liar.
> : The Tyranny of Super-Delegates
> http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/05/6189/
>
> But, most ironic of all is that Obama can't win with the
> super delegates UNLESS HE SHITS ON THE VOTERS.
No, that's Hillary who can't win unless she gets the super delegates to shit
on the voters.
> As things stand, the Super Delegates from the states
> Hillary won just outnumber the Super Delegates from
> the states Obama won, WITHOUT counting Florida and
> Michigan.
Super delegates choose for themselves. They have no obligation to vote the
way their state voted.
> But why aren't we counting Florida & Michigan? Oh, yes,
> because if we did then Obama would have been out of this
> thing on Super Tuesday. That's why.
What else does your crystal ball tell you?
--
Bushism 11-22:
"This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot. I
understand the emontionality of death penalty cases."
--Seattle Post-Intelligencer; June 23, 2000
Bill Baker
wrote in message news:<CKudnUaC_ctdKbfV...@comcast.com>...
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:02450528-6254-4a7d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> You really are a Republican, aren't you? All you
> can do is lie about Obama and call people silly
> names because you want Clinton to win - knowing
> that she can't beat McCain.
I think he may be an Obama supporter purposely trying to make Hillary
supporters look stupid.
--
<@AntiHeiss> friend of mine went to jail last night
<@AntiHeiss> he probably isn't getting out for a while
<%The_Coolest> y?
<+Enyo> why?
<%The_Coolest> :o
<@AntiHeiss> it was a girl cop, she was pretty cute too
<@AntiHeiss> she said anything you say can and will be held against
you....he sat there for a while and said 'tits'
Bill Baker
wrote in message news:<hmvl241ae6rr4vdak...@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:41:36 -0400, I found that Bill Baker
> <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> Scribbled the following on the bathroom
> wall:
>
>>> You really are a Republican, aren't you? All you
>>> can do is lie about Obama and call people silly
>>> names because you want Clinton to win - knowing
>>> that she can't beat McCain.
>>
>>I think he may be an Obama supporter purposely trying to make Hillary
>>supporters look stupid.
>
>
> I don't think they can look any dumber than they are; but, at least
> they aren't as stupid as McCain supporters.
Very true...
--
<calin> we had a guy at school that wore black lipstick.. and was all
gothy.. and then one day we caught him buying an assvibrator
<ecoli> ew.
<ecoli> wait, you "caught" him?
<ecoli> like, you were behind him in line at the assvibrator store?
<Aero> he doesnt answer
*** Quits: calin (No route to host)
JTEM
> No, that's Hillary who can't win unless she gets
> the super delegates to shit on the voters.
...by reflecting the votes of the voters.
She won Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Super
Delegates should all be behind her. The alternative is
to shit on the voters.... like Obama's supporters in
the DNC already did to Florida, Michigan and to a
lesser extend Texas & Nevada.
After all, Hillary won Texas & Neveda (Texas by
100,000 votes), but Obama got more delegates.
Does that sound "fair" to you?
Post the links to the usenet articles where you blast
the part elite for this totaly anti-democratic sleaze
move.
Thanks in advance for nothing, hypocrite.
JTEM
> I don't think they can look any dumber than they are;
Wow, that would be really courageous, even for a sock
puppet, if you were capable of grasping simple
english.... never mind the issue.
But isn't that why you have to invent sock puppets in the
first place? It's so nice & safe, hiding behind the sock
puppet, never having to stand by anything you make the
mistake of typing...
JTEM
> No, that's Hillary who can't win unless she gets
> the super delegates to shit on the voters.
And then, RIGHT AFTER THAT...
> > As things stand, the Super Delegates from the states
> > Hillary won just outnumber the Super Delegates from
> > the states Obama won, WITHOUT counting Florida and
> > Michigan.
> Super delegates choose for themselves. They have
> no obligation to vote the way their state voted.
In other words, you think it's great that Obama wants them
to shit on the voters.
If you were sane you'd notice these astounding contradictions
that you keep making.
As things stand, every one of you Obama supporters replying
to me are so fucked up you can't see them EVEN WHEN THEY
ARE POINTED OUT.
And yet you pretend that you're NOT just like the neo-cons,
even though you're clearly every bits as reality deprived?
Seek help, ding bat. Seek help.
Yang, AthD (h.c)
wrote:
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> No, that's Hillary who can't win unless she gets
>> the super delegates to shit on the voters.
>
>And then, RIGHT AFTER THAT...
>
>> > As things stand, the Super Delegates from the states
>> > Hillary won just outnumber the Super Delegates from
>> > the states Obama won, WITHOUT counting Florida and
>> > Michigan.
>
>> Super delegates choose for themselves. They have
>> no obligation to vote the way their state voted.
>
>In other words, you think it's great that Obama wants them
>to shit on the voters.
So when Hilary Clinton campaigns for Brack Obama two months from now,
will she be on your shit list too?
Bill Baker
news:<dc01f573-04f5-4c10...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> No, that's Hillary who can't win unless she gets
>> the super delegates to shit on the voters.
>
> And then, RIGHT AFTER THAT...
>
>> > As things stand, the Super Delegates from the states
>> > Hillary won just outnumber the Super Delegates from
>> > the states Obama won, WITHOUT counting Florida and
>> > Michigan.
>
>> Super delegates choose for themselves. They have
>> no obligation to vote the way their state voted.
>
> In other words, you think it's great that Obama wants them
> to shit on the voters.
Choosing the one who is ahead in the popular vote, delegate count and number
of states won is hardly "shitting on the voters."
> If you were sane you'd notice these astounding contradictions
> that you keep making.
If you were paying attention, you would see that nothing I said was a
contradiction.
--
Bushism 7-19:
"The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I
have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've
looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty...I mean innocent person to
death in the state of Texas."
--NPR's All Things Considered; June 16, 2000
Bill Baker
news:<581b56ff-aca9-4174...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> No, that's Hillary who can't win unless she gets
>> the super delegates to shit on the voters.
>
> ...by reflecting the votes of the voters.
>
> She won Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Super
> Delegates should all be behind her. The alternative is
> to shit on the voters.... like Obama's supporters in
> the DNC already did to Florida, Michigan and to a
> lesser extend Texas & Nevada.
The super delegates can vote as they wish. They can either vote with their
state or district, or they can vote for the guy with the most delegates.
Or both, or neither. That's why they're call "uncommitted."
> After all, Hillary won Texas & Neveda (Texas by
> 100,000 votes), but Obama got more delegates.
>
> Does that sound "fair" to you?
Yes. He got the most delegates according to the rules.
> Post the links to the usenet articles where you blast
> the part elite for this totaly anti-democratic sleaze
> move.
Absolutely nothing anti-democratic or sleazy about following the rules.
> Thanks in advance for nothing, hypocrite.
Massive loon projection on your part.
--
Bushism 8-7:
"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of
our imports come from overseas."
--Beaverton, Oregon; September 25, 2000
Bill Baker
news:<af8dab4e-7be3-4eba...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>...
This from someone who won't even post under his real name...
--
WallJam7: roses are red
WallJam7: violets are blue
WallJam7: all of my base
WallJam7: are belong to you
JTEM
> So when Hilary Clinton campaigns for Brack Obama
> two months from now, will she be on your shit list too?
What the fuck, do you ever think for yourself?
Anyhow, what does that have to do with you people exhibiting
the EXACT SAME behavior as we saw in the Bushbots?
The article you're replying to underscored the perfect
example, where the idiot cited the will of the voters
as the reason the Super Delegates should not support
Hillary EVEN AS he defended Super Delegates who
turn their backs on the voters they represent in order to
support Obama.
....and then all the nuts who read citations demonstrating
that Obama lied about Rezko & Wright, and then deny it.
How many times have we seen "Fred Stone" do that
sort of thing?
Anyhow, yeah, anyone who can do that is a scary
motherfucker, and they are no different than a Bushbot,
not one iota of difference.
And, yeah, they deserve our scorn.
And when I say "Our," I mean reality-based people.
JTEM
> Choosing the one who is ahead in the popular vote,
....but only after you've conveniently ignored
the popular vote in Florida and Michigan....
Ah, "democracy"... Bush style.
But, like I said, you couldn't see your own astounding
contradiction even after I pointed it out. Thank you for
proving it.
What's more, you proved that the other Obama supporters
here are just as mentally ill. After all, if any of them noticed
the contraidiciton they certainly didn;t have a problem with
it.
Compare that to all of you turds calling me a liar for
proving -- with cites -- that Obama lied repeatedly about
Rezko, or how he lied about NAFTA... or the Rev.
Wright...
I made a statements, I produced cites demonstrating that
those statements are true, all the Obama whack jobs
denounce me. You puke out some blaring contradiction
and not a single Obama nut so much as notices.
You're fucked in the head. Seriously, you're really fucked up.
DanielSan
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> No, that's Hillary who can't win unless she gets
>> the super delegates to shit on the voters.
>
> And then, RIGHT AFTER THAT...
>
>>> As things stand, the Super Delegates from the states
>>> Hillary won just outnumber the Super Delegates from
>>> the states Obama won, WITHOUT counting Florida and
>>> Michigan.
>
>> Super delegates choose for themselves. They have
>> no obligation to vote the way their state voted.
>
> In other words, you think it's great that Obama wants them
> to shit on the voters.
And Hillary wants them to shit on the voters.
>
> If you were sane you'd notice these astounding contradictions
> that you keep making.
>
> As things stand, every one of you Obama supporters replying
> to me are so fucked up you can't see them EVEN WHEN THEY
> ARE POINTED OUT.
We could say the same thing about you.
>
> And yet you pretend that you're NOT just like the neo-cons,
> even though you're clearly every bits as reality deprived?
>
> Seek help, ding bat. Seek help.
>
Hypocrite.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for *
* a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord *
* doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked *
* Him to forgive me." --Emo Philips *
****************************************************
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
> And Hillary wants them to shit on the voters.
What's ironic is that you would say this, even though
I quoted Bill Baker DEFENDING Obama's desires to
do exactly that. What did YOUR MAN there, Bill Baker,
say? Oh, yes:
: Super delegates choose for themselves. They have
: no obligation to vote the way their state voted.
And he didn't say this in isolation, no. He was justify
the Super Delegates crapping on the voters and
supporting Obama INSTEAD of the voters they represent.
In other words, he wants Kerry to support Obama even
though the voters of Massachusetts -- the voters that
he represents -- chose Hillary.
What's more, he said this AFTER he accused Hillary of
trying to get the Super Delegates to shit on the voters!
THAT was the contradiction. And, yeah, as ASTOUNDING
as it was, as HUGE and as OBVIOUS as it was, you're
both so fucking brain dead that you missed it!
As I said, you you failed to grasp....
> > As things stand, every one of you Obama supporters
> > replying to me are so fucked up you can't see them
> > EVEN WHEN THEY ARE POINTED OUT.
>
> We could say the same thing about you.
You could claim the moon is made out of green cheese. Fact
is though, you both did prove me right. YOU proved that *I* was
telling the truth.
Congratulations.
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>
>
>> And Hillary wants them to shit on the voters.
>
> What's ironic is that you would say this, even though
> I quoted Bill Baker DEFENDING Obama's desires to
> do exactly that. What did YOUR MAN there, Bill Baker,
> say?
Bill Baker is not my man.
Oh, yes:
>
> : Super delegates choose for themselves. They have
> : no obligation to vote the way their state voted.
>
> And he didn't say this in isolation, no. He was justify
> the Super Delegates crapping on the voters and
> supporting Obama INSTEAD of the voters they represent.
Sorry, but they're not shitting on the voters. They may vote in
contrast to what the state they represent want, but they are not
shitting on those voters.
>
> In other words, he wants Kerry to support Obama even
> though the voters of Massachusetts -- the voters that
> he represents -- chose Hillary.
That's right. That's the point of superdelegates. That's the rules.
And all you want to do is change the rules because your candidate cannot
win otherwise.
>
> What's more, he said this AFTER he accused Hillary of
> trying to get the Super Delegates to shit on the voters!
>
> THAT was the contradiction. And, yeah, as ASTOUNDING
> as it was, as HUGE and as OBVIOUS as it was, you're
> both so fucking brain dead that you missed it!
>
> As I said, you you failed to grasp....
>
>>> As things stand, every one of you Obama supporters
>>> replying to me are so fucked up you can't see them
>>> EVEN WHEN THEY ARE POINTED OUT.
>> We could say the same thing about you.
>
> You could claim the moon is made out of green cheese.
And you're claiming the moon is made out of swiss cheese.
> Fact
> is though, you both did prove me right. YOU proved that *I* was
> telling the truth.
>
> Congratulations.
>
>
>
You're funny.
Bill Baker
news:<494b5a02-a958-4c00...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> Choosing the one who is ahead in the popular vote,
>
> ....but only after you've conveniently ignored
> the popular vote in Florida and Michigan....
Nope. He's even ahead if you count those.
> Ah, "democracy"... Bush style.
>
> But, like I said, you couldn't see your own astounding
> contradiction even after I pointed it out. Thank you for
> proving it.
I know you really want to think it was a contradiction, but as I explained,
it isn't.
> What's more, you proved that the other Obama supporters
> here are just as mentally ill. After all, if any of them noticed
> the contraidiciton they certainly didn;t have a problem with
> it.
Because there was none.
> Compare that to all of you turds calling me a liar for
> proving -- with cites -- that Obama lied repeatedly about
> Rezko, or how he lied about NAFTA... or the Rev.
> Wright...
We're calling you a liar for lying.
> I made a statements, I produced cites demonstrating that
> those statements are true, all the Obama whack jobs
> denounce me. You puke out some blaring contradiction
> and not a single Obama nut so much as notices.
Because your cites don't say what you want them to say.
> You're fucked in the head. Seriously, you're really fucked up.
Massive loon projection on your part.
--
Funny Lurlean quote #2:
"I've seen Shakespeare in heaven. He prefers the company of Southerners on
account of we speak the same language."
Bill Baker
news:<e2144790-e3a2-44e1...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>
>
>> And Hillary wants them to shit on the voters.
>
> What's ironic is that you would say this, even though
> I quoted Bill Baker DEFENDING Obama's desires to
> do exactly that. What did YOUR MAN there, Bill Baker,
> say? Oh, yes:
>
> : Super delegates choose for themselves. They have
> : no obligation to vote the way their state voted.
>
> And he didn't say this in isolation, no. He was justify
> the Super Delegates crapping on the voters and
> supporting Obama INSTEAD of the voters they represent.
If they go against the popular vote and the delegate count and give Hillary
the nomination, they will indeed be shitting on the voters.
> In other words, he wants Kerry to support Obama even
> though the voters of Massachusetts -- the voters that
> he represents -- chose Hillary.
That would be nice, but if he decides to support Hillary instead, there's
nothing I can do about it.
> What's more, he said this AFTER he accused Hillary of
> trying to get the Super Delegates to shit on the voters!
>
> THAT was the contradiction. And, yeah, as ASTOUNDING
> as it was, as HUGE and as OBVIOUS as it was, you're
> both so fucking brain dead that you missed it!
If they go against the popular vote and the delegate count and give Hillary
the nomination, they will indeed be shitting on the voters.
--
Bushism 6-5:
"I want everybody to hear loud and clear that I'm going to be the president
of everybody." --Washington, D.C.; January 18, 2001
JTEM
> Sorry, but they're not shitting on the voters.
Working AGAINST the voters you represent, doing
exactly THE OPPOSITE of what they want isn't
shitting on the voters? Than what is?
Oh, yes: Supportin Hillary under any circumstances,
You're fucked in the head. Again, you contradict
yourself, and you can't even see it....
JTEM
> > ....but only after you've conveniently ignored
> > the popular vote in Florida and Michigan....
>
> Nope. He's even ahead if you count those.
So all Obama needed to take the lead was #1 disenfranchising
the voters in two large and important states, #2 getting more
delegates from Nevada and Texas than Hillary, even though
Hillary won both states & granting "Bonus" delegates to North
Carolina.
....plus the huge media bias, and the 2-to-1 cash advantage.
Let's not talking about his trying to steal Indiana.
And, with all that, Obama STILL couldn't win the nomination!
He has to beg Super Delegates to shit on the voters and support
him over the candidate that the voters of their states chose.
Wow, so Obama couldn't beat Hillary in a fair fight, and he
couldn't even win the nomination on his own WHILE CHEATING.
And that's your idea of a "Strong" candidate?
You desperately need therapy.
DanielSan
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but they're not shitting on the voters.
>
> Working AGAINST the voters you represent, doing
> exactly THE OPPOSITE of what they want isn't
> shitting on the voters?
No.
> Than what is?
Do you know the difference between being a superdelegate and an elected
representative?
I work as a payroll administrator at work. I am training myself to be a
computer animator at home. What do they have to do with each other?
Nothing.
Being a superdelegate has nothing to do with being an elected
representative.
>
> Oh, yes: Supportin Hillary under any circumstances,
>
> You're fucked in the head. Again, you contradict
> yourself, and you can't even see it....
>
You used to be funny. Now you're getting tedious.
DanielSan
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>>> ....but only after you've conveniently ignored
>>> the popular vote in Florida and Michigan....
>> Nope. He's even ahead if you count those.
>
> So all Obama needed to take the lead was #1 disenfranchising
> the voters in two large and important states, #2 getting more
> delegates from Nevada and Texas than Hillary, even though
> Hillary won both states & granting "Bonus" delegates to North
> Carolina.
Yes.
>
> ....plus the huge media bias,
If by "bias" you mean "smear campaign" and "negative stories", yes.
> and the 2-to-1 cash advantage.
Which he got from getting more donors.
>
> Let's not talking about his trying to steal Indiana.
>
> And, with all that, Obama STILL couldn't win the nomination!
Yet. Once the convention comes closer, more superdelegates will flip
and Hillary's numbers will go down as Obama's numbers go up, passing the
"magic" number.
> He has to beg Super Delegates to shit on the voters and support
> him over the candidate that the voters of their states chose.
Idiot.
>
> Wow, so Obama couldn't beat Hillary in a fair fight, and he
> couldn't even win the nomination on his own WHILE CHEATING.
Sorry, but it's not cheating when you play by the rules.
>
> And that's your idea of a "Strong" candidate?
Actually, yes. He played by all the preordained rules and got more
donations from more people. He's been shit upon in the media and he's
STILL holding his own against McCain...who has virtually been untouched.
Wait until the general campaign season and let's see how the margins go.
>
> You desperately need therapy.
>
Yes, you do.
Bill Baker
news:<89b0a4c9-05fa-4911...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> > ....but only after you've conveniently ignored
>> > the popular vote in Florida and Michigan....
>>
>> Nope. He's even ahead if you count those.
>
> So all Obama needed to take the lead was #1 disenfranchising
> the voters in two large and important states,
Nope. He's even ahead if you count those.
> #2 getting more delegates from Nevada and Texas than Hillary, even though
> Hillary won both states & granting "Bonus" delegates to North Carolina.
Complain to the Democratic party if you don't like it, but it's not Obama's
fault. Neither was it a conspiracy against Hillary.
> ....plus the huge media bias, and the 2-to-1 cash advantage.
>
> Let's not talking about his trying to steal Indiana.
Yes, let's not because it didn't happen.
> And, with all that, Obama STILL couldn't win the nomination!
> He has to beg Super Delegates to shit on the voters and support
> him over the candidate that the voters of their states chose.
>
> Wow, so Obama couldn't beat Hillary in a fair fight, and he
> couldn't even win the nomination on his own WHILE CHEATING.
So let's see some proof of this "cheating."
> And that's your idea of a "Strong" candidate?
Yes, because he was able to overcome Hillary's name recognition and
Washington connections to get more votes and more delegates than her.
> You desperately need therapy.
Once again, massive loon projection on your part.
--
Bushism 9-30/10-1:
"I would have my Secretary of Treasury be in touch with the financial
centers, not only here but at home."
--Boston, Massachusetts; October 3, 2000
Rick
[snip]
>He lied. Obama boldly & repeatedly lied. In fact, he has never
>once told the truth.
If Obama said the sun rises in the east, you'd set your alarm clock for
extra early the next morning in order to watch it rise in the west.
- Rick
Rick
[snip]
>Q: When has Obama told the truth about Wright?
>
>A: Never. He's lied at every opportunity.
Then Wright wasn't his pastor for 20 years. So what's the big deal about
Wright?
- Rick
Mark K. Bilbo
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>>> ....but only after you've conveniently ignored
>>> the popular vote in Florida and Michigan....
>> Nope. He's even ahead if you count those.
>
> So all Obama needed to take the lead was #1 disenfranchising
> the voters in two large and important states, #2 getting more
> delegates from Nevada and Texas than Hillary, even though
> Hillary won both states & granting "Bonus" delegates to North
> Carolina.
You know, if you don't like the rules of the DNC, take it up with them.
Don't bitch at the candidate you don't happen to like.
Sheesh.
DanielSan
JTEM reminds me of my younger brother when I used to play board games
with him. I was 8 and he was 5. In Monopoly, he had gone to jail at
least 10 times in a row through various methods (such as landing on "Go
to Jail", rolling three doubles, or getting a Chance/Community Chest
card that told him to).
Me: "You rolled a six. That means you move six spaces."
Him: "1-2-3-4-5....6....NO! I have to Go to Jail again!!!"
Me: "Sorry, but now you have to put your piece on the Jail spot and
either pay $50 to get out* or roll a double."
Him: "NO!"
Me: "Sorry, that's the rules."
He threw a temper tantrum, claiming the rules were created to make sure
he could never win. He claimed that I had rigged the dice. He claimed
that I stacked the deck of Community Chest and Chance cards to guarantee
he'd always go to jail. He asked me to break the rules so that he
wouldn't have to "Go to Jail". I refused to allow him to break the rules.
Then he grabbed what money he had and threw them across the room.
It was several years before I sat down to play a board game with him
again. He's much more mature now. :-)
JTEM reminds me of that. He hates that the rules seem to be conspiring
against his candidate. Like my brother back then, he claims that Obama
was somehow cheating by following those rules; rules that ultimately
benefited Obama. However, if the positions were reversed, and Clinton
did precisely as Obama did and Obama did precisely as Clinton did, the
position would be exactly the reverse. Clinton would've gotten that 30%
"Bonus" delegates and so on.
JTEM just cannot face the facts that Obama and Clinton have played by
the rules...and Obama is benefiting.
(JTEM also claims, like my brother then did, that the rulemakers
conspired against his candidate when they drew up the rules.)
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I was against gay marriage until I realized *
* that I didn't have to have one." *
* --James Carville *
****************************************************
Brian E. Clark
04ee7b...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, JTEM
said...
> But why aren't we counting Florida & Michigan?
Because Hillary agreed not to participate in those
elections. Because she agreed that the votes would not
count.
She broke her promise and took part in both elections,
and now she wants the votes to count.
> Oh, yes, because if we did then Obama would
> have been out of this thing on Super Tuesday. That's why.
Hillary lost according to *the very rules she agreed
to abide by*. But like you, Hillary she sees no
problem in demanding credit for votes and voters she
acquired through chicanery and to which she is by no
honest assessment entitled.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Brian E. Clark
27.cust.wildblue.net>, Mark K. Bilbo said...
> You know, if you don't like the rules of the DNC, take it up with them.
He should take it up with Hillary, too: she agreed to
those rules, same as Barak.
JTEM
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
> Then Wright wasn't his pastor for 20 years.
So you're saying the guy who was born & raised a
muslim didn't really belong to a Christian church for
20 years, like he claims?
I don't think you meant to say that...
JTEM
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > He lied. Obama boldly & repeatedly lied. In fact, he
> > has never once told the truth.
>
> If Obama said
Why speculate? I certainly wasn't. Obama has NEVER
told the truth about the Rev. Wright. Never. He has NEVER
come clean about Rezko. NEVER. Here's a story from
A YEAR AGO:
: But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his
: "best estimate" was that Rezko raised "between
: $50,000 and $60,000" during Obama's political career.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article
Of course, by the time that story was printed it was
already known that Obama took more than $160 thousand
of Rezko's cash.... right now the figure is up to $250
thousand.
Oh. Maybe I should point out: Rezko was indicted for
extorting kick-backs and compaign contributions FOR
OBAMA'S CAMPAIGNS from companies trying to do
business with the government.
And Obama lied. According to Obama's latest version
of the story, he lied for more than a year solid. Of
course, that's only assuming that the enitre truth is
now out, and the real figure is only a little more than
400% higher than he originally claimed...
JTEM
We'll try it again...
DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[---mindless spew---]
Speaking of Hillary & Super Delegates, Bill Baker
said:
: No, that's Hillary who can't win unless she gets
: the super delegates to shit on the voters.
Then, in the same post, speaking of Obama and the
Super Delegates...
: Super delegates choose for themselves. They have
: no obligation to vote the way their state voted.
See the contradiction now, retard?
Obama asking Super Delegates -- like, Mike Dukakis
or John Kerry -- to shit on the voters of their state is
fine, but is Hillary asks the same of Super Delegates
(or even if she simply asks them to support the wishes
of the voters of their states) than that's bad.
Can you grasp it now, retard?
It's a contradiction. It's a whopping HUGE contradiction.
And, yeah, you failed to grasp it even AFTER it was
pointed out to you.
Moron.
JTEM
> Nope. He's even ahead if you count those.
Count.... what? The "Bonus" delegates he got in North
Carolina plus the extra delegates he got in Texas and
Nevada (though Hillary won both states) and the fact
that they disenfranchised two large and important states?
Because it's a package deal. You can't shoot down ONE
anti-democratic move on behalf of Obama, because it took
ALL those anti-democratic moves.
JTEM
> You know, if you
You know, a "Good" candidate would have done well on
a level playing field. Some might even argue that a "Good"
candidate could win on a level playing field.
Obama couldn't win the nomination even on a playing
field that was heavily slanted in his favor.
How do you plan on beating McCain, if not by an open
and fair democracy?
And, oh, why should anyone in their right mind be happy
about that?
Bill Baker
news:<208d1ae2-6d76-422f...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> Nope. He's even ahead if you count those.
>
> Count.... what?
If you can't learn to follow a thread, I'm certainly not going to help you.
--
Funny Lurlean quote #15:
"Do you know that some vampire lesbians train monster mosquito's to go out
and do their blood letting for them - just so's you gullible types won't
catch on to what's really a going on." -- Lurlean explains the rampant
spread of West Nile virus in the lesbian community.
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Then Wright wasn't his pastor for 20 years.
>
>So you're saying the guy who was born & raised a
>muslim didn't really belong to a Christian church for
>20 years, like he claims?
Are you actually claiming Obama was raised a Muslim?
OK, you have passed far beyond the event horizon of wingnuttery.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
> > Fuck that! It's time for the DNC to admit that they've
> > been sucker punched by the Reich wing -- yet again --
> Not. Gonna. Happen.
"President McCain."
The only way to avoid it is to make sure it isn't a free &
fair election.
Quite frankly, I don't believe the Reich is going to roll over
the way the center & left did in the case of Bush....
JTEM
> JTEM reminds me
DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM reminds me
So you've given up on lying to cover Obama's dishonesty,
and you're at least resting the stupidity thing -- the one
where you can't spot an obvious contradition even when
it's pointed out to you. But...
....but are potential Obama voters really so frigging
stupid that they can't see that you're making this shit
up as you go along?
Here:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#similarity
Not that it will make a difference. You're simply hoping
to squash any criticism of your God by weight on numbers.
Well, let's play on....
JTEM
> > Count.... what?
>
> If you can't learn to follow a thread,
Answer the question pussy boy:
: Count.... what? The "Bonus" delegates he got in North
DanielSan
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> Nope. He's even ahead if you count those.
>
> Count.... what? The "Bonus" delegates he got in North
> Carolina plus the extra delegates he got in Texas and
> Nevada (though Hillary won both states)
As per the rules.
> and the fact
> that they disenfranchised two large and important states?
They didn't.
>
> Because it's a package deal. You can't shoot down ONE
> anti-democratic move on behalf of Obama, because it took
> ALL those anti-democratic moves.
>
Not at all.
Bill Baker
news:<a3f62158-14f5-405e...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> > Count.... what?
>>
>> If you can't learn to follow a thread,
>
> Answer the question
No. If you can't learn to follow a thread, I'm sure as hell not going to
help you.
--
<Batty> Euch, rap is just missing one letter. c.
<zeep> rapc?
<Batty> ...
<Batty> Crap you idiot. you put the c on the other end
<zeep> oic
<Batty> Though you could also say it's missing an e
<zeep> wtf is erap?
* Batty bangs his head repeatedly against a wall
Bill Baker
in message news:<Z5-dnfHfyZr9wbLV...@comcast.com>...
> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/171056/015/838/445627
Watch him ignore this one and keep ferociously attacking Obama, just like he
never does to Clinton.
--
<Fenris> My mom found me perusing bash.org and looking up quotes about
incest, and was like OMG!
<Fenris> Now she actually goes there regularly to make sure there aren't any
new text words that have been searched for
<Fenris> I saw her looking at the site yesterday, and was like, "WTF??"
<Fenris> And she said she was just checking to see what kind of stuff I look
at online.
<Fenris> I swear, someday I'm just going to rape that bitch.
<ctone> ...
<ctone> now theres a quote for bash.org
<Fenris> Don't you fucking dare.
DanielSan
Actually, I'm fully waiting for him to attack the messenger here. :-)