Re: Number of U.S. Military Personnel Slaughtered In America's War against Iraq
Reality_CheckŠ
> Number of U.S. Military Personnel Slaughtered In America's War
> against Iraq
> U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 4146
>
>
> Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 0
>
> Total 4146
>
> Latest Coalition Fatality: 22\08\2008
>
> DoD Confirmation List
>
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
>
> Also read
>
> U.S. Military Cemetery Running Out Of Space;
>
> http://www.uruknet.de:80/?p=m36550&hd=&size=1&l=e
>
> Still lying about real Iraq deaths
>
> IRAQ TOLL
>
> US Iraq Toll - 12,000 Dead, 25,000 Wounded 26,000 Deserted?
>
> The Republican's War: Thank you, George!
>
> Harring Report: The National Young Men's Meat Grinder
> by Brian Harring, Domestic Intelligence Reporter
>
> http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2598.htm
Miguel A. González
Doesn't matter that this is the war that has had the least U.S.
casualties ever. In WWI and WWII, you had that many casualties in one
day. Here's some perspective for you. In the Civil War the combined
casualties at the Battle of Antietam were 23,000 in a single day. For
Gettysburg it was 51,000 in three days. The total casualties on both
sides over 4 years was 630,000, exceeding the combined losses of all
the other wars, including Iraq.
Truth...@nospam.net
Your post is completely irrelevant there right winger. What is relevant
is the fact that over 4000 have died for nothing and thousands have been
crippled for nothing. Not to mention the fact that after 7 years, Osama
is still running free and making terrorism stronger.
In <8oc4b45n61liccn6n...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
at 12:20 AM, Miguel A. González <miguel....@cox.net> said:
>On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:08:14 -0600, "Reality_Check "
Mavisbeacon
"Miguel A. González" <miguel....@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8oc4b45n61liccn6n...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:08:14 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
> Doesn't matter that this is the war that has had the least U.S.
> casualties ever.
I agree it doersn't matter that the toll is so low in comparison to a WORLD
WAR involving Russia China Britian France Germany Arabia Japan Korea South
Africa Australia New Zeeland and others. One can't really comparte that to
the largest most modern military in the world occupying a country with no
army can one?
> In WWI and WWII, you had that many casualties in one
> day.
pupulation of Iraq - about 15 million. Iraq had NO ARMY for about 4 years.
They did suffer hundreds of thousands of dead and other casualties.
Population of the world at war in WWII about two thousand million??? As you
say one cant compare. Especially with No Army vs. the most modern army in
the world.
> Here's some perspective for you. In the Civil War the combined
> casualties at the Battle of Antietam were 23,000 in a single day.
Different type of war. Two Armies faced each other with similar armmaments.
Just like WWI trench warfare. That didnt happen in Iraq.
> For
> Gettysburg it was 51,000 in three days. The total casualties on both
> sides over 4 years was 630,000, exceeding the combined losses of all
> the other wars, including Iraq.
Well this is debatable. In the Iraq Iran war (the original gulf war) I would
think Iran lost millions of people. Iraq certainly lost tens or hundreds of
thousands. and they lost possibly tens of thousands to American attacks.
They also lost up to a million people over the Saddam period the US embargo
and the Us occupation combined. One Lancet survey has an upper limit of US
embargos and invasion at about 600,000.
B y the way outside WWI and WWII about a hundred millions or more have been
killed by militarist regimes mercenaries and armies (some supported by the
US including the muJIHADeen others by USSR UK France etc.) in the 20th
century.
Gray Ghost
news:1f36$48b2f939$4f611225$20...@news.upc.ie:
No army? Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world.
I think since the rest of your silliness is based on that one fact you have
been terminated.
--
Always remember:
Bull Connor was a Democrat!
Truth...@nospam.net
What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
not needed and not justified.
In <1f36$48b2f939$4f611225$20...@news.upc.ie>, on 08/25/2008
at 10:37 AM, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> said:
>"Miguel A. Gonzßlez" <miguel....@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:8oc4b45n61liccn6n...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:08:14 -0600, "Reality_Check "
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
> 20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
> not needed and not justified.
>
> In <1f36$48b2f939$4f611225$20...@news.upc.ie>, on 08/25/2008
>
>
>
> >"Miguel A. Gonzßlez" <miguel.gonza...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is the American peoples fault for being lowlife peices of shit.
I reported being abducted by George Bush in 1982 to Ann Richards and
she only used it to get herself elected Governor of Texas.
I got the shaft and I do mean I am still trying to pay bills for the
"help" they gave me and I still cannot get the monitoring device out
of my back or legal representation for it.
That is why I beleive the US military is shit and does not represent
freedom when my ancestors started it in 1775.
Bring the War home.
Exterminate the christian government
Mavisbeacon
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B05951D03610We...@216.196.97.142...[snip]
>>
>> B y the way outside WWI and WWII about a hundred millions or more have
>> been killed by militarist regimes mercenaries and armies (some supported
>> by the US including the muJIHADeen others by USSR UK France etc.) in the
>> 20th century.
>>
>>
>>
>
> No army? Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world.
Wrong! the Us casualties were about 100 or so when the US DISBANDED the
Iraqi army about three weeks after they invaded Iraq!
The vast majority of Us deaths happened AFTER that when Irad HAD NO ARMY!
>
> I think since the rest of your silliness is based on that one fact you
> have
> been terminated.
And your basis for saying it is "silly" is? You offer opinion and not actual
fact. Care to show where I am wrong rather than just claiming it is silly?
here it is again by the way
In the Iraq Iran war (the original gulf war) I
> >would think Iran lost millions of people.
Do you think that is a "silly" comment? Can you show that Iran lost only a
few and not hundreds of thousands or millions?
>Iraq certainly lost tens or
> >hundreds of thousands.
You think that is a silly comment? It is backed up by cluster sample
research. what counter argumewnt have you got?
>>and they lost possibly tens of thousands to
> >American attacks. They also lost up to a million people over the Saddam
> >period the US embargo and the Us occupation combined. One Lancet survey
> >has an upper limit of US embargos and invasion at about 600,000.
> >B y the way outside WWI and WWII about a hundred millions or more have
> >been killed by militarist regimes mercenaries and armies
This is a TRUE comment and backed up by statistics. You claim it is silly?
Mao and stalin alone must be responsible for near 100 million dead. The Us
supported many a dictator (suharto, Pol pot, Marcos etc...) and the french
supported papadoc and Babadoc
the British Amin. then ther is Noriega, Mabutu and a host of others. and YES
the MuJIHADeen too!
(some supported
> >by the US including the muJIHADeen others by USSR UK France etc.) in the
> >20th century
This is supported by the historical evidence. It is NOT a "silly" comment!
Mavisbeacon
"Hiccum Blurpaedius" <hic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78b3a9a4-dc9d-4749...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
...I dont blame the American people for being ignorant of what leaders hide
from them. unless they are willfully ignorant.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
>20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
>not needed and not justified.
Do you ever STOP lying?
________________________________
Truth Teller's Lies
LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
LIE 3 "I never lied"
LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
LIE 6 "I never said the atomic bombing was justified."
LIE 7 "Bush hasn't been in Iraq"
LIE 8 "The draft has been signed."
LIE 9 "Parts of the draft has been signed."
LIE 10 "The draft agreement is now final"
LIE 11 "They're finished with the draft agreement"
LIE 12 "provisions ... were signed as progress was made"
LIE 13 "the draft is done, and on its way to Washington."
LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
Truth...@nospam.net
What asshole are you claiming there are not over 4,000 dead and not 20,000
crippled? The military is telling us there are. Are you telling us
there were WMDs? None were ever found goober. They did not exist and
bush lied claiming they were there.
You are the kind fucktard that needs to be marched into combat at gun
point -- the only way you cowards will go-- to clean the gene pool of
right wing scum.
In <nci6b4dhuf678k2kk...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>In <nci6b4dhuf678k2kk...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
> at 05:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>
>
>
>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
>>>20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
>>>not needed and not justified.
>
>>Do you ever STOP lying?
>
>
>What asshole are you claiming there are not over 4,000 dead and not 20,000
>crippled? The military is telling us there are. Are you telling us
>there were WMDs? None were ever found goober. They did not exist and
>bush lied claiming they were there.
>
>You are the kind fucktard that needs to be marched into combat at gun
>point -- the only way you cowards will go-- to clean the gene pool of
>right wing scum.
You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
Truth...@nospam.net
Run along coward. We don't need right wing war-mongers who won't fight in
the wars for nothing they want others dying in. -->thats you and your
whole party fuckard.
In <s3p6b4l11nhtokq0j...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>In <s3p6b4l11nhtokq0j...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
> at 07:04 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>
>
>
>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>
>>>In <nci6b4dhuf678k2kk...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
>>> at 05:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
>>>>>20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
>>>>>not needed and not justified.
>>>
>>>>Do you ever STOP lying?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>What asshole are you claiming there are not over 4,000 dead and not 20,000
>>>crippled? The military is telling us there are. Are you telling us
>>>there were WMDs? None were ever found goober. They did not exist and
>>>bush lied claiming they were there.
>>>
>>>You are the kind fucktard that needs to be marched into combat at gun
>>>point -- the only way you cowards will go-- to clean the gene pool of
>>>right wing scum.
>
>>You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>
>Run along coward.
No. I'm here to stay. You're a proven liar.
Learn to say P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T M-C-C-A-I-N [CHUCKLE]
________________________________
Truth Teller's Lies
LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
LIE 3 "I never lied"
LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
LIE 6 "I never said the atomic bombing was justified."
LIE 7 "Bush hasn't been in Iraq"
LIE 8 "The draft has been signed."
LIE 9 "Parts of the draft has been signed."
LIE 10 "The draft agreement is now final"
LIE 11 "They're finished with the draft agreement"
LIE 12 "provisions ... were signed as progress was made"
LIE 13 "the draft is done, and on its way to Washington."
LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
LIE 15 "LIE 15 "The prime rate hit 21.5% under right wing reagon"
tankfixer
@comcast.net says...
> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
> >20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
> >not needed and not justified.
>
> Do you ever STOP lying?
Of course he won't.
He won't ever back up any statement he makes either..
Off to Salem tomorrow AM..
Look for pictures in the PM..
>
> ________________________________
> Truth Teller's Lies
>
> LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
> LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
> LIE 3 "I never lied"
> LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
> LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
> LIE 6 "I never said the atomic bombing was justified."
> LIE 7 "Bush hasn't been in Iraq"
> LIE 8 "The draft has been signed."
> LIE 9 "Parts of the draft has been signed."
> LIE 10 "The draft agreement is now final"
> LIE 11 "They're finished with the draft agreement"
> LIE 12 "provisions ... were signed as progress was made"
> LIE 13 "the draft is done, and on its way to Washington."
> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
>
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
Truth...@nospam.net
The bush record:
Ovee 4100 dead for nothing.
Over 20,000 crippled for life.
No WMDs.
Millions of iraqi's killled for nothing.
Osama still free to attack.
Now go play with yourself goober.
In <ees6b4l3ro4bv804a...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
tankfixer
>
> The bush record:
>
> Ovee 4100 dead for nothing.
> Over 20,000 crippled for life.
> No WMDs.
> Millions of iraqi's killled for nothing.
> Osama still free to attack.
>
> Now go play with yourself goober.
*57 is one's friend.
--
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>The bush record:
You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
________________________________
tankfixer
@comcast.net says...
> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
> >
> >The bush record:
>
> You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
And a drug user.
He keeps it up he will be a convicted criminal too.
> ________________________________
> Truth Teller's Lies
>
> LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
> LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
> LIE 3 "I never lied"
> LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
> LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
> LIE 6 "I never said the atomic bombing was justified."
> LIE 7 "Bush hasn't been in Iraq"
> LIE 8 "The draft has been signed."
> LIE 9 "Parts of the draft has been signed."
> LIE 10 "The draft agreement is now final"
> LIE 11 "They're finished with the draft agreement"
> LIE 12 "provisions ... were signed as progress was made"
> LIE 13 "the draft is done, and on its way to Washington."
> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
> LIE 15 "LIE 15 "The prime rate hit 21.5% under right wing reagon"
>
--
Miguel A. González
>
>
>What asshole are you claiming there are not over 4,000 dead and not 20,000
>crippled? The military is telling us there are. Are you telling us
>there were WMDs? None were ever found goober. They did not exist and
>bush lied claiming they were there.
Actually, WMDs were found, along with some MiG 25's with advanced
French reconnaissance equipment that they shouldn't have had under the
embargo.
>
>You are the kind fucktard that needs to be marched into combat at gun
>point -- the only way you cowards will go-- to clean the gene pool of
>right wing scum.
>
>
>
>
>
>In <nci6b4dhuf678k2kk...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
> at 05:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>
>
>
>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
>>>20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
>>>not needed and not justified.
>
1) A democratiacally elected governemnt on our side, in a
strategically sensitive part of the world.
2) An end to the U.N. "Oil for Food" corruption.
3) Saddam Hussein was close to being uncontained. His increase
attacks on allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones and increasing
belligerence were indicative.
4) Increased prospertity for the Iraqi people.
5) And end to the mass graves, rape room, and dissappearnace in the
middle of the night at the hands of the government.
If that's what you call nothing...
Miguel A. González
>
>The bush record:
>
>Ovee 4100 dead for nothing.
>Over 20,000 crippled for life.
>No WMDs.
>Millions of iraqi's killled for nothing.
Millions? ROTFLMAOL
>Osama still free to attack.
That is if he's even still alive. Most of Al Qaedas senior leadership
has been captured or killed. I believe the #2 guy was killed in Iraq
too.
Mavisbeacon
"Miguel A. González" <miguel....@cox.net> wrote in message
news:va97b41ef1tv0ror5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 01:48:51 GMT, Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>What asshole are you claiming there are not over 4,000 dead and not 20,000
>>crippled? The military is telling us there are. Are you telling us
>>there were WMDs? None were ever found goober. They did not exist and
>>bush lied claiming they were there.
>
>
> Actually, WMDs were found,
WHERE? In Iraq? That is news to me. You had better tell the US intelligence
because they already accept there were NO WMD's as claimed by the US before
invasion! They were wrong about that! Even the last evidence of any
PRECURSORS to WMD were in about 1995. Thre were subsequent UN inspections
and the US military all over Iraq and they didn't turn up any WMD. so wherre
do you claim threr were WMD in Iraq as promised before the invasion?
> along with some MiG 25's with advanced
> French reconnaissance equipment that they shouldn't have had under the
> embargo.
That isn't WMD! Look! WHY DID THE US INVADE IRAQ? They claimed loads of WMD
and that they knew where the WMD were and they would show it to the world!
SO!!! WHERE ARE THEY? they also claimed links between Saddam and AL Qaeda
such as Saddam sponsoring Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq and also that
Saddam supported International Islamic Terrorism. SO??? WHERE ARE THE LINKS?
there werent any!
[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
>>>>20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
>>>>not needed and not justified.
>>
> 1) A democratiacally elected governemnt on our side, in a
> strategically sensitive part of the world.
There is a democratically elected giovernment in Venezuala too! I dont see
any US support for them do you? and the Us have supported many a dictator in
the past - including Saddam!
> 2) An end to the U.N. "Oil for Food" corruption.
And a beginning to the 110 BILLION taxpayer dollar "no bid" contracts for
Haliburton and other pals of cheney!
> 3) Saddam Hussein was close to being uncontained.
In other words "he was contained"
>His increase
> attacks on allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones and increasing
> belligerence were indicative.
But that was NOT THE REASON given the reasons were
1 WMD which you know about and would show the world
2 Links to al Qaeda
By the way one of the Al Qaeda bases which WAS in Iraq was in a no fly zone
which Saddam could not get into because of US air presence. But the Us NEVER
BOMBED that base! Why not?
> 4) Increased prospertity for the Iraqi people.
According to what evidence?
> 5) And end to the mass graves, rape room, and dissappearnace in the
> middle of the night at the hands of the government.
That was not given as a reason for invading and not a valid legal reason
anyway. and if it is a reason then how come the Us supported Pinochet and
others who did similar acts? How can you maintain double standards?
>
> If that's what you call nothing...
I'd call it hypocrisy. making rules which you don't keep yourselves but
abuse when it suits you.
Mavisbeacon
"Miguel A. González" <miguel....@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fo97b4l8ikeporav9...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:31:09 GMT, Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>
>>The bush record:
>>
>>Ovee 4100 dead for nothing.
>>Over 20,000 crippled for life.
>>No WMDs.
>>Millions of iraqi's killled for nothing.
>
> Millions? ROTFLMAOL
Actually the Lancet survey has a top end estimate of around 600,000 SINCE
THE US OCCUPATION. But that does not include the EMBARGO which lasted for
about ten years before that! Nor does it include the WAR with Iran and the
regime of Saddam which lasted thirty years or so.
But certainly over a million would seem a reasonable estimate in Iraq due to
militarist regimes over the last 30 years.
>
>>Osama still free to attack.
>
> That is if he's even still alive. Most of Al Qaedas senior leadership
> has been captured or killed. I believe the #2 guy was killed in Iraq
> too.
What has Al queda to do with Iraq? there is absolutely NO LINK between any
attack against tyhe WTC in america and Al Qaeda!!! When Saddam was in charge
he OPPOSED Al Qaeda! The fact is that Al Qaeda only became of any
significance AFTER the US occupation of Iraq! Any growth of al Qaeda in Iraq
was BECAUSE of US involvment and not in spite of it!
Truth...@nospam.net
No son, no WMDs were found. Stop lying. And there were Mig 25s found
that were usable, or that had not been there before the first Gulf war.
Stop lying.
In <va97b41ef1tv0ror5...@4ax.com>, on 08/26/2008
Truth...@nospam.net
Oooooo I'm scared. You need to consult an attorney there little man
before you and your wife and sister are living in cars to pay off your
debt for libeling me.
Most people with a 40K blue-collar income aren't as stupid as you, so get
the advice you need now, while you have a chance to modify your criminal
behavior.
In <MPG.231d238e3...@nntp.earthlink.net>, on 08/25/2008
Truth...@nospam.net
Run along right wing goober. In fact, get your right wing ass to iraq and
collect information for us. We want to know what its like to walk out of
the green zone without an army surrounding you. Find out and send a
report. But get your affairs, and make peace with God first.
...Of course we know you lack the balls to be there, like all the other
right wing war-mongers here.
In <fo97b4l8ikeporav9...@4ax.com>, on 08/26/2008
Truth...@nospam.net
Show us the WMDs little liar! Prove me wrong with facts liar boy.
In <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
Mavisbeacon
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.231d238e3...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> In article <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, kschadenfreude
> @comcast.net says...
>> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The bush record:
>>
>> You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>
> And a drug user.
>
> He keeps it up he will be a convicted criminal too.
I suppose if you throw anough mud and name call some of it will stick.
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> Truth Teller's Lies
>>
>> LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
>> LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
>> LIE 3 "I never lied"
>> LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
>> LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
Sorry I havent been following the above. Have you actual references in
context? Can you supply the references please?
All five of these are appartently about the same thing. Some of then seem
mutually exclusive. as such they cant all be lies. for example if i say 1.
"the wall is black" and the wall is black and then I say 2. "I never said it
was black" then there are not two lies. In fact if i do not recall saying 1
then there is not even one lie.
>> LIE 6 "I never said the atomic bombing was justified."
Again you must:
1. Show where this was stated.
2. show a contradictory statement where he did justify bombing
3. show that when LIE 6 was stated he was aware he already contradicted it.
Just saying it is a lie is not SHOWING it is a lie. One assumes innocence
until guilt can be proven with evidence.
>> LIE 7 "Bush hasn't been in Iraq"
clearly Bush has but what ois the context? In a specific time period? Bush
senior or junior? Also, if he actually believed Bush had never been in Iraq
then it is NOT a lie.
>> LIE 8 "The draft has been signed."
>> LIE 9 "Parts of the draft has been signed."
>> LIE 10 "The draft agreement is now final"
>> LIE 11 "They're finished with the draft agreement"
>> LIE 12 "provisions ... were signed as progress was made"
Are 8 to 12 in chronoligical order. clrealy if in reverse chronoligical
order i.e. 12, 11,10 ,9 ,8 it could be a sensible and logically consistent
series of statements. what are is the dated sources?
>> LIE 13 "the draft is done, and on its way to Washington."
>> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
>> LIE 15 "LIE 15 "The prime rate hit 21.5% under right wing reagon"
>>
How is 15 a lie?
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>In <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
> at 09:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>
>
>
>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>>
>>>The bush record:
>
>>You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>
>
>Show us the WMDs little liar! Prove me wrong with facts liar boy.
I already have. You ignored it and continued to shriek. Then, as I
recall, you lied.
______________
"Learn to use google fucktard, just like I do."
-TruthTeller, explaining why he can't
come up with facts to support his lies.
Mavisbeacon
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <nci6b4dhuf678k2kk...@4ax.com>, kschadenfreude
> @comcast.net says...
>> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
>> >20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
>> >not needed and not justified.
>>
>> Do you ever STOP lying?
>
> Of course he won't.
> He won't ever back up any statement he makes either..
And can you back up claims 1 to 14 below? If not why do you do that of which
you accuse others? Isn't that a double standard?
Truth...@nospam.net
The price is coming due for paul D. carrier and his libel.
He plays here like its a game, and thinks there will never be a cost.
In <8cc16$48b3f76f$4f611225$21...@news.upc.ie>, on 08/26/2008
Truth...@nospam.net
Funny bush and cheney don't claim they found WMDs. ---> But here you are
lying goober, telling us you know more the President and all his men.
In <grt7b4pk457jnt60m...@4ax.com>, on 08/26/2008
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>In <grt7b4pk457jnt60m...@4ax.com>, on 08/26/2008
> at 05:31 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>
>
>
>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>
>>>In <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
>>> at 09:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The bush record:
>>>
>>>>You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Show us the WMDs little liar! Prove me wrong with facts liar boy.
>
>>I already have. You ignored it and continued to shriek. Then, as I
>>recall, you lied.
>
>>______________
>>"Learn to use google fucktard, just like I do."
>> -TruthTeller, explaining why he can't
>> come up with facts to support his lies.
>
>
>Funny bush and cheney don't claim they found WMDs. ---> But here you are
>lying goober, telling us you know more the President and all his men.
You're a liar, you'll always be a liar, and you'll always be a perfect
example of the Progressive Movement- a bunch of drugged, stupid liars.
tankfixer
>
> Oooooo I'm scared. You need to consult an attorney there little man
> before you and your wife and sister are living in cars to pay off your
> debt for libeling me.
I won't need to hire an attorney.
Your prosecution will be a criminal matter.
>
> Most people with a 40K blue-collar income aren't as stupid as you, so get
> the advice you need now, while you have a chance to modify your criminal
> behavior.
Tell us what crime you think I've committed ?
I'm in the mood for some fiction.
--
tankfixer
Mavis...@nospam.forme says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.231d238e3...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, kschadenfreude
> > @comcast.net says...
> >> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The bush record:
> >>
> >> You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
> >
> > And a drug user.
> >
> > He keeps it up he will be a convicted criminal too.
>
> I suppose if you throw anough mud and name call some of it will stick.
Go ahead and defend "truthteller" if you wish.
Facts are facts.
You should ask him about his late night activities. They are a crime.
> >
> >> ________________________________
> >> Truth Teller's Lies
> >>
> >> LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
> >> LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
> >> LIE 3 "I never lied"
> >> LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
> >> LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
>
> Sorry I havent been following the above. Have you actual references in
> context? Can you supply the references please?
> All five of these are appartently about the same thing. Some of then seem
> mutually exclusive. as such they cant all be lies. for example if i say 1.
> "the wall is black" and the wall is black and then I say 2. "I never said it
> was black" then there are not two lies. In fact if i do not recall saying 1
> then there is not even one lie.
Why don't you take it up with the person who compiled the list ?
tankfixer
>
> The price is coming due for paul D. carrier and his libel.
You misspelled "lable"
> He plays here like its a game, and thinks there will never be a cost.
If you wish to continue to take the petty disagreements from USENET into
real life be prepared to suffer the consequences Ed.
The cost may be more than you can handle.
--
Mavisbeacon
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:grt7b4pk457jnt60m...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>
>>In <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
>> at 09:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>The bush record:
>>
>>>You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>>
>>
>>Show us the WMDs little liar! Prove me wrong with facts liar boy.
>
> I already have.
Im sorry but I am not aware of that. I came into this discussion just now.
Would you please show me where the Us produced evidence of the laods and
loads of WMD in Iraq as promised. All I am aware of as the most recent WHICH
WAS 1995 are some precursors (not the chemicals but the stuff you might use
for making them) and a mould for making a rocket (not a rocket mind you but
a mould for making one). since then there were several YEARS of UN
inspectors who then left around 1998 and returned in 2002 and still
reported no WMD. Thyre Us then claimed loads of WMD and that they knew where
and would show everyone. then there was five years of US occupation and
hundreds of millions spent on a WMD hunt by the US. I am not aware of any
actual WMD being found. Maybe you could show wher you apparently proved WMD?
Care to show me if you would please?
>You ignored it and continued to shriek.
Really? could you please show me again this so called evidence for WMD in
Iraq in 2003?
tankfixer
Mavis...@nospam.forme says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.231d1557e...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <nci6b4dhuf678k2kk...@4ax.com>, kschadenfreude
> > @comcast.net says...
> >> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and over
> >> >20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that was
> >> >not needed and not justified.
> >>
> >> Do you ever STOP lying?
> >
> > Of course he won't.
> > He won't ever back up any statement he makes either..
>
> And can you back up claims 1 to 14 below? If not why do you do that of which
> you accuse others? Isn't that a double standard?
Why don't you ask Ed to back up his claims ?
Like this one ?
> >> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
Should be a simple matter for him to support that, don't you think ?
> >> ________________________________
> >> Truth Teller's Lies
> >>
> >> LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
> >> LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
> >> LIE 3 "I never lied"
> >> LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
> >> LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
> >> LIE 6 "I never said the atomic bombing was justified."
> >> LIE 7 "Bush hasn't been in Iraq"
> >> LIE 8 "The draft has been signed."
> >> LIE 9 "Parts of the draft has been signed."
> >> LIE 10 "The draft agreement is now final"
> >> LIE 11 "They're finished with the draft agreement"
> >> LIE 12 "provisions ... were signed as progress was made"
> >> LIE 13 "the draft is done, and on its way to Washington."
> >> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
> >>
> >
>
>
>
--
Mavisbeacon
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <wkSsk.852$w51.17@trnddc01>, Truth...@nospam.net says...
>>
>> Oooooo I'm scared. You need to consult an attorney there little man
>> before you and your wife and sister are living in cars to pay off your
>> debt for libeling me.
>
> I won't need to hire an attorney.
> Your prosecution will be a criminal matter.
I have no knowledge of the above but I do know that a criminal prosecution
in no way prevents an independent civil suit from being made. In fact
sometimes the civil suit is more "successful". OJ Simpson for example was
not found guilty of Murder of his wife (a criminal prosecution) but the
civil suit virtually bankrupt him.
[snip]
Mavisbeacon
Well would you mind showing me where Bush RECENTLY claimed he knew there was
WMD in Iraq?
I dont mean BEFORE the invasion! I mean in 2008 where Bush said he has
evidence of WMD in Iraq hidden by Saddam's forces BEFORE the US invasion?
and where Bush produced these WMD?
Mavisbeacon
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <8cc16$48b3f76f$4f611225$21...@news.upc.ie>,
> Mavis...@nospam.forme says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.231d238e3...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, kschadenfreude
>> > @comcast.net says...
>> >> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The bush record:
>> >>
>> >> You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>> >
>> > And a drug user.
>> >
>> > He keeps it up he will be a convicted criminal too.
>>
>> I suppose if you throw anough mud and name call some of it will stick.
>
> Go ahead and defend "truthteller" if you wish.
Im not defending anyone! I am asking you that if you make an accusation you
should provide the evidence to back it up. Reasonable people will just see
that as name calling if you do not provide evidence.
Im quite happy to judge your opinion as a valid opinion if you provide a
sound argument and evidence to back it up. It is a case of sound argument
and evidence being defended and not about just believing one person over
another.
> Facts are facts.
I agree. and your UNSUPPORTED OPINION in NOT fact!
> You should ask him about his late night activities. They are a crime.
Well if they are you should be able to list them and to support your
suggestion with evidence?
What activities?
>
>
>> >
>> >> ________________________________
>> >> Truth Teller's Lies
>> >>
>> >> LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
>> >> LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
>> >> LIE 3 "I never lied"
>> >> LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
>> >> LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
>>
>> Sorry I havent been following the above. Have you actual references in
>> context? Can you supply the references please?
>> All five of these are appartently about the same thing. Some of then seem
>> mutually exclusive. as such they cant all be lies. for example if i say
>> 1.
>> "the wall is black" and the wall is black and then I say 2. "I never said
>> it
>> was black" then there are not two lies. In fact if i do not recall saying
>> 1
>> then there is not even one lie.
>
> Why don't you take it up with the person who compiled the list ?
Because I addressed the person where I first saw it posted! If you can't
support what you post you shouldn't post it!
Mavisbeacon
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <8c13d$48b3f8a8$4f611225$23...@news.upc.ie>,
> Mavis...@nospam.forme says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.231d1557e...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <nci6b4dhuf678k2kk...@4ax.com>, kschadenfreude
>> > @comcast.net says...
>> >> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and
>> >> >over
>> >> >20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that
>> >> >was
>> >> >not needed and not justified.
>> >>
>> >> Do you ever STOP lying?
>> >
>> > Of course he won't.
>> > He won't ever back up any statement he makes either..
>>
>> And can you back up claims 1 to 14 below? If not why do you do that of
>> which
>> you accuse others? Isn't that a double standard?
>
> Why don't you ask Ed to back up his claims ?
Because All I see to date is where YOU posted claims and not him!
> Like this one ?
>> >> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
Where did he make that claim? Can you show me? If you can then I might well
ask the original claimant to back it up.
>
> Should be a simple matter for him to support that, don't you think ?
Yes. If YOU can show where and when he actually made such a claim.
[snip]
Truth...@nospam.net
See an attorney moron, and do start thinking about how you are going to
explain your hate and LIBEL to your paster and wife and sister.
That is the dutch-uncle talk son. You're in deeper shit if you fail to
heed the words you have been given.
n <MPG.231db1e2b...@nntp.earthlink.net>, on 08/26/2008
Truth...@nospam.net
See an attorney moron, and do start thinking about how you are going to
explain your hate and LIBEL to your paster and wife and sister.
That is the dutch-uncle talk son. You're in deeper shit if you fail to
heed the words you have been given.
In <MPG.231db0c32...@nntp.earthlink.net>, on 08/26/2008
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
What's his recent claims got to do with it?
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:grt7b4pk457jnt60m...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
>>> at 09:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The bush record:
>>>
>>>>You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Show us the WMDs little liar! Prove me wrong with facts liar boy.
>>
>> I already have.
>
>Im sorry but I am not aware of that. I came into this discussion just now.
How is that my problem?
Mavisbeacon
Because YOU are making a claim which I am not aware of and since YOU are
making the claim it is for YOU to support it!
It seems you have not been reading what I posted.
Please look up "logical fallacy" and "burden of proof".
clearly if YOU make a claim it is for YOU to support it and if you don't
then that is YOUR PROBLEM.
Saying "I already showed you" when clearly you did not already show me does
not constitute supporting your claim.
Mavisbeacon
Bush does not NOW claim he knows about WMD in Iraq! he hasent in years. HE
DID (and Cheney in particular did) claim it BEFORE the invasion. Above it
sayd "bush and cheney don't claim they found WMDs.2 there is nothing in that
claiming they NEVER claimed it - just that they don't NOW claim it!
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:4i39b415gfv730apn...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:grt7b4pk457jnt60m...@4ax.com...
>>>> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
>>>>> at 09:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The bush record:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Show us the WMDs little liar! Prove me wrong with facts liar boy.
>>>>
>>>> I already have.
>>>
>>>Im sorry but I am not aware of that. I came into this discussion just now.
>>
>> How is that my problem?
>
>Because YOU are making a claim which I am not aware of
How is that MY problem? Why should *I* have to bring *YOU* up to
speed?
Scout
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in message
news:b3435$48b420ef$4f611225$22...@news.upc.ie...
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iraq/msg/de7f7f5770968d5a?hl=en&dmode=source
The ball is in your court.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
So is a major-league sense of entitlement. Mavis claims that I have to
go back through 700 posts and gather all the necessary citations
because she jumped into the middle of the conversation and feels left
out.
MUST be a liberal.
Scout
Well, depending on how mavis deals with this one I may well be willing to do
what's necessary to produce links to the rest. With the information given
and google it isn't exactly the hardest thing to.
Truth...@nospam.net
Hey goober the names were in the news. Guess you are telling us you are
too stupid to find them. Klaus is. Must be you idiots share the same
brain cell.
In <Dy1tk.881$lf2.877@trnddc07>, on 08/27/2008
Truth...@nospam.net
Stop trolling and work on finding those WMDs you claim are there goober.
In <4i39b415gfv730apn...@4ax.com>, on 08/26/2008
Truth...@nospam.net
Stop trolling and work on finding those WMDs you claim are there goober.
In <7h39b4duutfnlni8t...@4ax.com>, on 08/26/2008
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>Stop trolling
Stop lying.
________________________________
Truth Teller's Lies
LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
LIE 3 "I never lied"
LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
LIE 6 "I never said the atomic bombing was justified."
LIE 7 "Bush hasn't been in Iraq"
LIE 8 "The draft has been signed."
LIE 9 "Parts of the draft has been signed."
LIE 10 "The draft agreement is now final"
LIE 11 "They're finished with the draft agreement"
LIE 12 "provisions ... were signed as progress was made"
LIE 13 "the draft is done, and on its way to Washington."
LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>Hey goober the names were in the news. Guess you are telling us you are
>too stupid to find them.
Guess you're telling us you're too stupid to cite them.
Liar.
________________________________
Truth Teller's Lies
LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
LIE 3 "I never lied"
LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
LIE 6 "I never said the atomic bombing was justified."
LIE 7 "Bush hasn't been in Iraq"
LIE 8 "The draft has been signed."
LIE 9 "Parts of the draft has been signed."
LIE 10 "The draft agreement is now final"
LIE 11 "They're finished with the draft agreement"
LIE 12 "provisions ... were signed as progress was made"
LIE 13 "the draft is done, and on its way to Washington."
LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
tankfixer
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.231db15ee...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <8cc16$48b3f76f$4f611225$21...@news.upc.ie>,
> > Mavis...@nospam.forme says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.231d238e3...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >> > In article <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, kschadenfreude
> >> > @comcast.net says...
> >> >> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The bush record:
> >> >>
> >> >> You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
> >> >
> >> > And a drug user.
> >> >
> >> > He keeps it up he will be a convicted criminal too.
> >>
> >> I suppose if you throw anough mud and name call some of it will stick.
> >
> > Go ahead and defend "truthteller" if you wish.
>
> Im not defending anyone! I am asking you that if you make an accusation you
> should provide the evidence to back it up. Reasonable people will just see
> that as name calling if you do not provide evidence.
I'm not making an accusation. I am starting a fact.
You have fallen into the same trap Ed has, you are assuming my words
mean something they don't.
>
> Im quite happy to judge your opinion as a valid opinion if you provide a
> sound argument and evidence to back it up. It is a case of sound argument
> and evidence being defended and not about just believing one person over
> another.
>
> > Facts are facts.
> I agree. and your UNSUPPORTED OPINION in NOT fact!
Some facts are indisputable.
>
> > You should ask him about his late night activities. They are a crime.
>
> Well if they are you should be able to list them and to support your
> suggestion with evidence?
Why would I give you, an anonymous person evidance ?
> What activities?
Ask Ed. See if he has the balls to admit to them.
>
>
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >> ________________________________
> >> >> Truth Teller's Lies
> >> >>
> >> >> LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
> >> >> LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
> >> >> LIE 3 "I never lied"
> >> >> LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
> >> >> LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
> >>
> >> Sorry I havent been following the above. Have you actual references in
> >> context? Can you supply the references please?
> >> All five of these are appartently about the same thing. Some of then seem
> >> mutually exclusive. as such they cant all be lies. for example if i say
> >> 1.
> >> "the wall is black" and the wall is black and then I say 2. "I never said
> >> it
> >> was black" then there are not two lies. In fact if i do not recall saying
> >> 1
> >> then there is not even one lie.
> >
> > Why don't you take it up with the person who compiled the list ?
>
> Because I addressed the person where I first saw it posted! If you can't
> support what you post you shouldn't post it!
You really are rather dense.
I will type slow, just for you.
I
did
not
make
up
the
list.
Morton Davis
> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>
>>The bush record:
>
> You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>
>
tankfixer
>
>
> See an attorney moron, and do start thinking about how you are going to
> explain your hate and LIBEL to your paster and wife and sister.
Hate ?
You are projecting Ed.
I'm concerned for your health and mental state.
The fact you use drugs shouldn't upset you so.
>
> That is the dutch-uncle talk son. You're in deeper shit if you fail to
> heed the words you have been given.
I supose I can post some audio I have.....
--
tankfixer
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.231db23ac...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <8c13d$48b3f8a8$4f611225$23...@news.upc.ie>,
> > Mavis...@nospam.forme says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.231d1557e...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >> > In article <nci6b4dhuf678k2kk...@4ax.com>, kschadenfreude
> >> > @comcast.net says...
> >> >> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What is not debatable is that over 4000 have died for nothing, and
> >> >> >over
> >> >> >20,000 are crippled for life -- because bush lied to make a war that
> >> >> >was
> >> >> >not needed and not justified.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you ever STOP lying?
> >> >
> >> > Of course he won't.
> >> > He won't ever back up any statement he makes either..
> >>
> >> And can you back up claims 1 to 14 below? If not why do you do that of
> >> which
> >> you accuse others? Isn't that a double standard?
> >
> > Why don't you ask Ed to back up his claims ?
>
> Because All I see to date is where YOU posted claims and not him!
I see.
You are deliberately ignorant.
What claims do you think I've made ?
>
>
> > Like this one ?
> >> >> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
>
> Where did he make that claim? Can you show me? If you can then I might well
> ask the original claimant to back it up.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iraq/msg/de7f7f5770968d5a?
hl=en&dmode=source
>
> >
> > Should be a simple matter for him to support that, don't you think ?
>
> Yes. If YOU can show where and when he actually made such a claim.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iraq/msg/de7f7f5770968d5a?
hl=en&dmode=source
I won't hold my breath
tankfixer
FYI
Check alt.binaries.pictures.military for an interesting pair of
photos...
tankfixer
>
> See an attorney moron, and do start thinking about how you are going to
> explain your hate and LIBEL to your paster and wife and sister.
>
> That is the dutch-uncle talk son. You're in deeper shit if you fail to
> heed the words you have been given.
Get help
--
tankfixer
@comcast.net says...
> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Hey goober the names were in the news. Guess you are telling us you are
> >too stupid to find them.
>
> Guess you're telling us you're too stupid to cite them.
Memory loss
>
> Liar.
That he is.
>
> ________________________________
> Truth Teller's Lies
>
> LIE 1 "Bush signed the agreement."
> LIE 2 "Bush 'has to sign' the agreement.
> LIE 3 "I never lied"
> LIE 4 "I said Bush signed the agreement to work on the agreement"
> LIE 5 "Other people can sign docs w/ the authority of the President."
> LIE 6 "I never said the atomic bombing was justified."
> LIE 7 "Bush hasn't been in Iraq"
> LIE 8 "The draft has been signed."
> LIE 9 "Parts of the draft has been signed."
> LIE 10 "The draft agreement is now final"
> LIE 11 "They're finished with the draft agreement"
> LIE 12 "provisions ... were signed as progress was made"
> LIE 13 "the draft is done, and on its way to Washington."
> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
> LIE 15 "LIE 15 "The prime rate hit 21.5% under right wing reagon"
>
--
Tim Miller
> In article <DxWsk.790$p72.420@trnddc05>, Truth...@nospam.net says...
>>
>> See an attorney moron, and do start thinking about how you are going to
>> explain your hate and LIBEL to your paster and wife and sister.
>
> Hate ?
> You are projecting Ed.
> I'm concerned for your health and mental state.
>
> The fact you use drugs shouldn't upset you so.
Wait until his friends find out he fucks barnyard animals...
MALE barnyard animals.
tankfixer
replyton...@invalid.invalid says...
I don't thin Ed HAS any friends..
Ergo his spewing hate on USENET.
Tim Miller
> In article <g92dgm$tpo$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> replyton...@invalid.invalid says...
>> tankfixer wrote:
>>> In article <DxWsk.790$p72.420@trnddc05>, Truth...@nospam.net says...
>>>> See an attorney moron, and do start thinking about how you are going to
>>>> explain your hate and LIBEL to your paster and wife and sister.
>>> Hate ?
>>> You are projecting Ed.
>>> I'm concerned for your health and mental state.
>>>
>>> The fact you use drugs shouldn't upset you so.
>> Wait until his friends find out he fucks barnyard animals...
>>
>> MALE barnyard animals.
>
>
> I don't thin Ed HAS any friends..
>
> Ergo his spewing hate on USENET.
>
My mistake. Wait until his PAROLE OFFICER finds out.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
Give me something to go on here......
tankfixer
and
Subject: Some more for Ed.
Truth...@nospam.net
You must be speaking from expereince, eh there right winger tim miller!
In <g92e3d$tpo$5...@registered.motzarella.org>, on 08/26/2008
Mavisbeacon
that is a fallacious position!
YOU are the one making the claim which you have not supported. Until YOU
provide the support anyone else at any stage in the future will only have
your opinion and not FACT as you claim.
Please look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy". It is not for
me to show the negative it is for the person making the claim to support it!
Next i suppose you will say you don't have to bring me up to speed on the
unicorns you already have proven.
Stating you have proved something is NOT proving anything! Care to SHOW
where you proved it please?
Mavisbeacon
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Dy1tk.881$lf2.877@trnddc07...
>
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in message
> news:b3435$48b420ef$4f611225$22...@news.upc.ie...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.231db23ac...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>> Like this one ?
>>>> >> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
>>
>> Where did he make that claim? Can you show me? If you can then I might
>> well ask the original claimant to back it up.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iraq/msg/de7f7f5770968d5a?hl=en&dmode=source
>
> The ball is in your court.
Now the above reference is:
Message-ID: <Dpxrk.425$p72.404@trnddc05>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:28:35 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.223.104.190This is apparently fromn truthtellerthe
actual words used are:[quote]I can post the names of
the people working on the documents who say the draft is done, and on its
way to Washington. [end quote]So how is this a lie?it was apparently
written in reference
to:>http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSLK40574520080820 BAGHDAD
>(Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi negotiators completed a draft deal on
>Wednesday to give U.S. troops a legal basis to stay in Iraq after 2008,
>without setting out a timetable for their withdrawal, Iraq's top
>negotiator said.
>The White House denied that the long-awaited deal -- which will replace a
>U.N. Security Council resolution that now provides the basis for the U.S.
>presence -- had been finalized.The implication seems to me to be that the
>US whether they intend to withdraw or not actually have plans for
>withdrawal whether or not they carry them out. How it that a lie?
Mavisbeacon
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <997ef$48b4180f$4f611225$15...@news.upc.ie>,
> Mavis...@nospam.forme says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.231db15ee...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <8cc16$48b3f76f$4f611225$21...@news.upc.ie>,
>> > Mavis...@nospam.forme says...
>> >>
>> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.231d238e3...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> >> > In article <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > kschadenfreude
>> >> > @comcast.net says...
>> >> >> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The bush record:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>> >> >
>> >> > And a drug user.
>> >> >
>> >> > He keeps it up he will be a convicted criminal too.
>> >>
>> >> I suppose if you throw anough mud and name call some of it will stick.
>> >
>> > Go ahead and defend "truthteller" if you wish.
>>
>> Im not defending anyone! I am asking you that if you make an accusation
>> you
>> should provide the evidence to back it up. Reasonable people will just
>> see
>> that as name calling if you do not provide evidence.
>
> I'm not making an accusation. I am starting a fact.
No you are certainly NOT! Your statement is YOUR OPINION. It is NOT and
established fact until you provide actual evidence! I have requested this
evidence of you and you have not provided it. Until you DO provide it it
remains opinion.
> You have fallen into the same trap Ed has, you are assuming my words
> mean something they don't.
It is quite clear what your words mean. you called someone a liar. I asked
you to show me where they lied. Nor your OPINION as to whether they lied but
reference to and a quote from the actual posting and then another quote
contradicting that and which shows that he was lying.
You also stated that someone will be a convicted criminal. that is NOT fact!
If you claim as fact that someone will be a criminal you preempt the whole
judicial procedure. You presume guilt. That isnt for you to decide! It is
for a court to decide.If you go and tell a judge what he should be doing he
will probably cite you for contempt.
>
>>
>> Im quite happy to judge your opinion as a valid opinion if you provide a
>> sound argument and evidence to back it up. It is a case of sound argument
>> and evidence being defended and not about just believing one person over
>> another.
>>
>> > Facts are facts.
>> I agree. and your UNSUPPORTED OPINION in NOT fact!
>
> Some facts are indisputable.
But, sadly, you have not provided ANY to me.
Just saying someone is a liar is not an indisputable fact. nor is claiming
they will be convicted of a crime.
>
>>
>> > You should ask him about his late night activities. They are a crime.
>>
>> Well if they are you should be able to list them and to support your
>> suggestion with evidence?
>
> Why would I give you, an anonymous person evidance ?
who I am is not the issue. Please dont bring ME into this. It is YOU who is
making the claim. It makes no difference if i am the man in the moon or the
old woman who lived in a shoe. The point is YOU CLIMED something so it is
for YOU to provide evidencfe for it. It is not a FACT it is your OPINION
until you provide evidence. You are wholly entitled to your opinion. But you
are also entitled to believe the Moon is made of Cheese. If you want to
prove it then you have to provide evidence.
If you are not prepared to or don't want to prove it then why are you
posting unsupported claims to a public forum?
>
>> What activities?
>
> Ask Ed. See if he has the balls to admit to them.
Admit what?
Mavisbeacon
>
[snip]
>
> Well, depending on how mavis deals with this one I may well be willing to
> do what's necessary to produce links to the rest. With the information
> given and google it isn't exactly the hardest thing to.
Yes I agree. But I didnt make the claim so it isnt for me to do! Maybe
truthteller is lying. I don't know . but I am not going to just take
unsupported opinion in advance! so far all i have been given is a claim that
a policy for US withdrawal for Iraq had been drawn up. I can't see how this
is such a "big lie" as you seem to be claiming. Also, the references may
well supply logical contradiction but that initself is just fallacious
reasoning and not lying.
also, if tankfixer is using a proper poster he will have his own record so
it is easy for him to go to his "sent items" and dig up the ten or so
references from the 700 or so posts to a thread.
Mavisbeacon
this IS NOT an isolated exchange between two people! It is posted in a
public forum! If at some stage in the future you or anyone else wants to
return to the issue you wil have to be able to provide that information
anyway. given that the reference I was given from scout is from the last
few days I doubt you would have posted 700 messages in those few days.
But the short answer is YES if you post a list of so called lies you SHOULD
have the necessary citations giving the dates of them saying what they said.
Mavisbeacon
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
A list of 15 or so things which you claim were all lies posted by someone
else.
>>
>>
>> > Like this one ?
>> >> >> LIE 14 "I can post the names ... who say the draft is done"
>>
>> Where did he make that claim? Can you show me? If you can then I might
>> well
>> ask the original claimant to back it up.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iraq/msg/de7f7f5770968d5a?
> hl=en&dmode=source
I have dealt with this in another sub thread just now in reply to Scout. It
may take a few hours to get onto yuou news server. if you believe i havent
then I will post the reference to it to this sub thread.
It seems all you did was cut and paste scouts reference. Cant you actually
supply any of your own references to the 15 statements you claim are lies?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Should be a simple matter for him to support that, don't you think ?
>>
>> Yes. If YOU can show where and when he actually made such a claim.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iraq/msg/de7f7f5770968d5a?
> hl=en&dmode=source
>
> I won't hold my breath
Yes I read that and all it says is :
[quote] I can post the names of
the people working on the documents who say the draft is done, and on its
way to Washington.
[/quote]But how is that a
lie?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701547_pf.html
"Every war must end," says Zalmay Khalilzad, America's ambassador to
Baghdad. And while termination of the brutal conflict in Iraq is hard to
imagine right now, top U.S. officials are sketching a road map to begin
stabilizing the conflict and withdrawing American troops.
[end quote]
that was on June 28.
what is your point? Are you seriously claiming that truthteler was aware of
the exact date of US pullout and is lying about it by obfuscating and that
the US administration actually know and have agreed when they will pull out
and truthteller knows this but is lying about that?
Scout
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in message
Which is all well and good except for a couple of details.
1) He has yet to produce these names he claims that he can
2) He claimed the draft was finished about a week prior to this
Truth...@nospam.net
Listen up goober: The names of the lead negotiators were on the
internet. Reporters were asking them for progress updates. That's how
we knew the draft was near completion; e.g., waiting for Washington to say
'we'll go with it.'
If you weren't a whining dunce, you could have found the names just as I
did, and you could have figured out the draft was completed before it was
made public by officials in Washington.
Now go play moron somewhere else.
In <9Y9tk.758$482.123@trnddc06>, on 08/27/2008
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>YOU are the one making the claim which you have not supported.
Really? How do you know? You claim to have jumped into the middle of
the thread. Now all of a sudden, I have to stop what I'm doing and
make you aware? Bring you up to speed? I don't think so. Go fuck off.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
Get off your fat lazy ass and look for it, because this *is* a
conversation between two people and I don't have to discuss it with
you, you rude pushy freak.
Mavisbeacon
> In talk.politics.guns "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>YOU are the one making the claim which you have not supported.
>
> Really? How do you know?
Because i pointed thm out! YOU made a claim . i referred to it and asked if
you have any supporting evidence. while you stated that you HAD EVIDENCE you
have as yet not supplied it.
dont you remember?
Message-ID: <92942$48b41319$4f611225$12...@news.upc
where I stated:
Would you please show me where the Us produced evidence of the laods and
loads of WMD in Iraq as promised. All I am aware of as the most recent WHICH
WAS 1995 are some precursors (not the chemicals but the stuff you might use
for making them) and a mould for making a rocket (not a rocket mind you but
a mould for making one). since then there were several YEARS of UN
inspectors who then left around 1998 and returned in 2002 and still
reported no WMD. Thyre Us then claimed loads of WMD and that they knew where
and would show everyone. then there was five years of US occupation and
hundreds of millions spent on a WMD hunt by the US. I am not aware of any
actual WMD being found. Maybe you could show wher you apparently proved WMD?
Care to show me if you would please?
[end quote]
Also: Message-ID: <7d252$48b41808$4f611225$15...@news.upc.ie>
Wher i asked:
Well would you mind showing me where Bush RECENTLY claimed he knew there was
WMD in Iraq?
I dont mean BEFORE the invasion! I mean in 2008 where Bush said he has
evidence of WMD in Iraq hidden by Saddam's forces BEFORE the US invasion?
and where Bush produced these WMD?
[end quote]
As regards truthteller, I pointed out :Message-ID:
<8cc16$48b3f76f$4f611225$21...@news.upc.ie>
Can you supply the references please?
All five of these are appartently about the same thing. Some of then seem
mutually exclusive. as such they cant all be lies.
[end quote]
In the same post I questioned you list of 15 so called "lies" and asked you
to show thir original posting by truth teller and how they are lies.
>You claim to have jumped into the middle of
> the thread.
I have no idea where the "middle of this thread" is. But i am capable of
referring to messages in it, unlike you it seems.
I am listed at 9 in the thread: Number of U.S. Military Personnel
Slaughtered In America's War against Iraq in soc.culture.iraq
You actually came into that thread LATER than Me!
http://groups.google.ie/group/soc.culture.iraq/browse_frm/thread/fe5544213fc85716/b2e88194543d7c34?lnk=st&q=Number+of+U.S.+Military+Personnel+Slaughtered+In+America%27s+War+against+Iraq#b2e88194543d7c34
so I don't think you idea that you or anyonf else posted 700 messages to
this thread
Re: Number of U.S. Military Personnel Slaughtered In America's War against
Iraq
is really standing up.
>Now all of a sudden, I have to stop what I'm doing and
> make you aware? Bring you up to speed? I don't think so. Go fuck off.
Next I suppose you will claim you posted 700 messages proving the existence
of Unicorns to a thread which has only 84 messages and expect people to
believe you? If asked for evidence you will tell people to go and read the
evidence of unicorns which you already provided! LOL!
You claims just don't stand up! This thread in soc.culture.Iraq does not
contain the proof of the alleged "lies"
Mavisbeacon
Not my job! Please look up the following:
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php#shiftproof
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting
YOU made the claim then it is for YOU to supply the backup. Maybe the
evidence of the lies is with all the WMD and the Unicorns? LOL!
> because this *is* a
> conversation between two people and I don't have to discuss it with
> you, you rude pushy freak.
Ac tually no it isn't! It is a posting to a public forum. If it was a
private discussion you would just send each other e mails. but you took it
to a public forum and I have every right to ask you for evidence. You have
every right not to supply evidence and to keep posting you UNSUPPORTED
OPINION. I'll give you that. But by not supporting your OPINION and claiming
it is a fact you are exposed to the scrutiny of others in these public fora
as someone who just cant back up what they claim. If you continue to claim
it you are heading for been branded a Bigot! Not alone that but you reprisal
by resorting to ad hominem suggests that when you lose an argument you show
that by resort to personal attack. when you cant with the debate attack the
person making the point you can't defeat is it? I do not recollect being
rude and I do not expect you can produce evidence for that either can you?
Finally this will reflect badly on you in the future as other people will
see you can't support you own claims and might conclude if you refuse to
support it here then you will only have unsupported opinion elsewhere.
I strongly suggest you avoid public ridicule and at least try to provide
some evidence to support claims about lies which you claim are easy to show
but have not shown.
Mavisbeacon
What names ? Those of the people who negotiated the terms of withdrawal?
> 2) He claimed the draft was finished about a week prior to this
Where did he make that claim?
Mavisbeacon
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:vp2tk.260417$TT4.116662@attbi_s22...
Depends on what you mean. there is no "war" in terms of US law. But there
was no "war" in Viet Nam either. Legally and officially the Us were
assisting the south Vietnamese military. But I doubt anyone today in the US
would insist there was no war in Viet Nam.
Nor is there a "war" on drugs. since "drugs" is not a country.
Clearly there was an invasion of Iraq an attack against the Military of Iraq
and the occupation of Iraq by the US. since then disparate groups for
various motivations have been attacking the US occupation troops. But you
can say "no war" if you wish. Hundreds of thousands of millions of your tax
dollars have been given by your Government to rich people who oversee
"reconstruction" for this non war.
Mavisbeacon
<Truth...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:m2atk.910$lf2.83@trnddc07...
>
>
> Listen up goober: The names of the lead negotiators were on the
> internet.
Where were the on the internet? when were they posted?
>Reporters were asking them for progress updates. That's how
> we knew the draft was near completion; e.g., waiting for Washington to say
> 'we'll go with it.'
>
> If you weren't a whining dunce, you could have found the names just as I
> did, and you could have figured out the draft was completed before it was
> made public by officials in Washington.
something would have to be "completed" to some extent before it was released
to public view.
But isnt draft is by definition not a final doccument but a early version
giving fairly much the whole outline and main points?
[snip]
FYI
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/08/108765.htm
what we have accomplished in this agreement is the most advanced version of
any SOFA or strategic agreement between the United States and any other
country in the world. Because the U.S. negotiators indeed showed a great
deal of flexibility and understanding.
U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework and Status of
Forces Agreement: Congressional Response
July 11, 2008
Matthew C. Weed
Analyst in Foreign Policy Legislation
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:5efab4dpe3rpbpp3h...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>YOU are the one making the claim which you have not supported.
>>
>> Really? How do you know?
>
>Because i pointed thm out!
All you pointed out was that you jumped in the middle and didn't see
them, because you're too fucking lazy to look.
>>You claim to have jumped into the middle of
>> the thread.
>
>I have no idea where the "middle of this thread" is.
Then how could you have claimed to have jumped into the middle of it?
Idiot.
@comcast.net Klaus Schadenfreude
>> Get off your fat lazy ass and look for it,
>
>Not my job!
Yeah, it is. I have no duty to bring you up to speed.
>> because this *is* a
>> conversation between two people and I don't have to discuss it with
>> you, you rude pushy freak.
>
>Ac tually no it isn't!
Actually, yeah, it is. I don't have to converse with anyone else. Get
it?
Mavisbeacon
> In talk.politics.guns "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:5efab4dpe3rpbpp3h...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>
>>>>YOU are the one making the claim which you have not supported.
>>>
>>> Really? How do you know?
>>
>>Because i pointed thm out!
>
> All you pointed out was that you jumped in the middle and didn't see
> them, because you're too fucking lazy to look.
Wrong! i pointed out that I didnt begin the discussion. But I also pointed
out that I posted to it BEFORE YOU!
>
>
>>>You claim to have jumped into the middle of
>>> the thread.
>>
>>I have no idea where the "middle of this thread" is.
>
> Then how could you have claimed to have jumped into the middle of it?
I didn't! Those are your words! My words were "I have no idea wher the
middle of this thread is" . Clearly I did NOT claim anything about jumping
in in the Middle of a thread. I would contend it is clear from this current
thread in soc.culture.iraq which anyone can access on google groups that I
arrive very early on at about message 9 and you arrive LATER! You seem to
refer to "lies" from an earlier thread somewhere else but i have no idea of
any such exchange took place because I asked you to provide it and so far
you failed to do so. Someone else DID provide a quote referring to ONE of
the list of FIFTEEN but I have yet to see how this is a lie. On the other
fourteen, I have had no references from you or anyone else.
>
> Idiot.
Im sorry? Name calling is not a substitute for an actual reference to actual
evidence. That is where you came into this discussion with me isn't it?
Mavisbeacon
No you don't in which case you DIRECTLY POST an e mail to one person. But
when you post a public group you HAVE TO accept that anyone accessing the
group can read it and reply to it. By even saying you don't have to reply
you are replying. In face if you. You may ignore the reply but that is just
adding to your inability to provide evidence to support your case in the
first place isn't it? Feel free to ignore me that is your right. But if you
do other people will look at how you ran from supporting your own opinion
after having claimed it was so easily supported and being unable to support
it when called to do so. Not a good reflection on you reputation is it?
Truth...@nospam.net
Hey stupid; you can't have a private conversation in a public forum.
fab4la6c47cs6j97...@4ax.com>, on 08/27/2008
Mavisbeacon
Where did i claim that I did?
In fact the earliest I can drag up about your apparent supported list of
lies is from only about a week ago:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:47:41 EDTMessage-ID:
811oa4pcp7spmsmam...@4ax.comThat has an addended list of
SEVEN apparent lies but the message refers to one with FOUR. Every so often
you add ofr change what these so called "lies" are. But even in this earlier
list you supply NO REFERENCE to the material which you claim to be
true!Ironically Scout who just appears in this thread said in that thread:
Subject: Re: grey_ghost471 lies abotu what he is (Re: War Crimes at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
Message-ID: Wmbrk.433$UX.188@trnddc03So shall I assume that you figure the
process of public debate is that you
are allowed to make up any crap you like and everyone else is suppose to
blindly accept your bullshit?[end quote]So I am just asking basically the
same as Scout am I not?
SaPeIsMa
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in message
>> In talk.politics.guns "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In <grt7b4pk457jnt60m...@4ax.com>, on 08/26/2008
>>>>> at 05:31 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude <kschadenfreude @comcast.net> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In <gtv6b49c9tab6j3oe...@4ax.com>, on 08/25/2008
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In talk.politics.guns Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The bush record:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You're a liar, and everyone knows it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>recall, you lied.
>>>>>
>>>>>>______________
>>>>>>"Learn to use google fucktard, just like I do."
>>>>>> -TruthTeller, explaining why he can't
>>>>>> come up with facts to support his lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Funny bush and cheney don't claim they found WMDs. ---> But here you
>>>>>are
>>>>>lying goober, telling us you know more the President and all his men.
>>>>
>>>> You're a liar, you'll always be a liar, and you'll always be a perfect
>>>> example of the Progressive Movement- a bunch of drugged, stupid liars.
>>>
>>>Well would you mind showing me where Bush RECENTLY claimed he knew there
>>>was
>>>WMD in Iraq?
>>
>>
>
> Bush does not NOW claim he knows about WMD in Iraq! he hasent in years. HE
> DID (and Cheney in particular did) claim it BEFORE the invasion. Above it
> sayd "bush and cheney don't claim they found WMDs.2 there is nothing in
> that claiming they NEVER claimed it - just that they don't NOW claim it!
>
>
So did Clinton and a whole bunch of other Democrats
Your partial reference trying to claim that it was only Bush and Cheney or
other members of the current Administration is disingenuous at best,
dishonest at worst
SaPeIsMa
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in message
And yet, YOU are trying to make it so !
> It is posted in a public forum!
So ?
You are trying to claim that just because yiu showd up late, myou are
somehow owed a rehash of data that has already been presented a multitude
of times
> If at some stage in the future you or anyone else wants to return to the
> issue you wil have to be able to provide that information anyway. given
> that the reference I was given from scout is from the last few days I
> doubt you would have posted 700 messages in those few days.
>
1) If he wants to re-post, that will be his perogative
It does not mean that he owes you anything at all
2) He never claimed to have posted 700 messages
He said it was about 700 messages ago.
Do try to read for comprehension instead of justification
> But the short answer is YES if you post a list of so called lies you
> SHOULD have the necessary citations giving the dates of them saying what
> they said.
>
And such were posted multiple times over the last few years
He does NOT owe you in any way a re-post of said material
YOU are responsible for your own education
SaPeIsMa
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in message
Since all of those are over, the war has been over for a long time
At best you may claim there is an occupation
Truth...@nospam.net
None of whom thought the president would be a no-good right wing kook,
lying to them to make a war for nothing.
What's dishonest is your right wing lying and nonsense.
Scout
> internet.
Irrelevent. The issue is that YOU could post them. You couldn't thus you
lied. Heck, I suspect you don't even know who the lead negotiators are.
>Reporters were asking them for progress updates. That's how
> we knew the draft was near completion; e.g., waiting for Washington to say
> 'we'll go with it.'
NEAR completion?????
I thought we started this off with BUSH HAS SIGNED IT.
now it's only NEAR completion?????
> If you weren't a whining dunce, you could have found the names just as I
> did,
Sorry, it's not my job to support your assertions.
>and you could have figured out the draft was completed before it was
> made public by officials in Washington.
Oh, so now it's completed. I thought you just told me it was near
completion. Boy that was quick. They managed to complete it in the 6 seconds
it took you to finish off your post.
Sorry, but your own message is internally inconsistent and you wonder why
people question your creditability.
Scout
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in message
Google is your friend. Learn to use it. It's not my job to educate you in
the last 2 weeks of discussions that have taken place, nor do I have any
interest in doing so. Particularly since you seem to expect to be spoon fed
all this information.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
Now let me walk you though some of it.
Author, well that would be Truth...@nospam.net
group: That would be talk.politics.guns
Keywords: Bush signed agreement
Then start looking and following the threads back.
Moishe Oysher
<paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>FYI
>Check alt.binaries.pictures.military for an interesting pair of
>photos...
Gee.... isn't the Selective Service also known as the DRAFT BOARD??????