The left's idea of their honest, transparent utopian oligarchy (Hides Proof whether CIA LIED or Not)...

[MioMyo]

What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway? After all if the
CIA lied to the Imperial Princess Pelosi, crimes were committed and people
should be made to face charges, RIGHT?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98AOBGO0&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to
investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that the CIA misled her in
2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects.
The House voted 252-172 to block the measure that would have created a
bipartisan congressional panel. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, sponsored the
resolution.

"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract
from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care,
energy and education," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to
investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that the CIA misled her in
2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects.
The House voted 252-172 to block the measure that would have created a
bipartisan congressional panel. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, sponsored the
resolution.

"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract
from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care,
energy and education," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:
: What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway? After all if the
: CIA lied to the Imperial Princess Pelosi, crimes were committed and people
: should be made to face charges, RIGHT?

The problem is that if the investigation went forward the whore of the house
and all the other looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems that
rushed to her defense would have to provide proof of their claims and they
don't have that proof.

[who are you?]

Post by Frank Pittel
: What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway? After all if
the : CIA lied to the Imperial Princess Pelosi, crimes were committed
and people : should be made to face charges, RIGHT?
The problem is that if the investigation went forward the whore of the
house and all the other looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib
dems that rushed to her defense would have to provide proof of their
claims and they don't have that proof.

Yep and that will make torture all OKIE-DOKIE and the CIA, who always use
deceit in their line of work, the ones who did not lie here.

Killer Christian with their Killer logic.. Nice!

And we want the republican't party to win back control?!

[MioMyo]

Post by Frank Pittel
: What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway? After all if the
: CIA lied to the Imperial Princess Pelosi, crimes were committed and people
: should be made to face charges, RIGHT?
The problem is that if the investigation went forward the whore of the house
and all the other looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems that
rushed to her defense would have to provide proof of their claims and they
don't have that proof.
--

In other words, the libs prefer to Trial By Their Liberal Press Whores, not
by the Constitution or the Rule of Law!

Post by Frank Pittel
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:

: "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: news:guWdndrp-***@giganews.com...
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:
: > : What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway? After all if
: > the
: > : CIA lied to the Imperial Princess Pelosi, crimes were committed and
: > people
: > : should be made to face charges, RIGHT?
: >
: > The problem is that if the investigation went forward the whore of the
: > house
: > and all the other looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems that
: > rushed to her defense would have to provide proof of their claims and they
: > don't have that proof.
: > --

: In other words, the libs prefer to Trial By Their Liberal Press Whores, not
: by the Constitution or the Rule of Law!

You got it!!

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:17:33 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: In other words, the libs prefer to Trial By Their Liberal Press Whores, not
: by the Constitution or the Rule of Law!
You got it!!

What "liberal press whores"?

You keep forgetting that the 3 major "news" outlets
(faux, Moonie times, and various scaife news rags" were
deliberately started to promote a political agenda.

Which, for most self-thinking people, is the antithesis
to a news outlet that tells the truth no matter WHO
likes it.

Faux snooze simply does not represent a legitimate news
source. It is ENTERTAINMEN (with a news format)

For ignorant rightwingers.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:17:33 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: In other words, the libs prefer to Trial By Their Liberal Press Whores, not
: by the Constitution or the Rule of Law!
You got it!!

What "liberal press whores"?
You keep forgetting that the 3 major "news" outlets
(faux, Moonie times, and various scaife news rags" were
deliberately started to promote a political agenda.

Really, got something credible to prove that nonsense, tard?
(cough... cough.... choke.. choke... don't hold your breath).......

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Which, for most self-thinking people, is the antithesis
to a news outlet that tells the truth no matter WHO
likes it.

The truth is tard, that bamby has released damning memos regarding Enhanced
Interrogation Techniques, yet refuses to release the memos which show
information obtained & American Lives these techniques saves.

More truth is the democrat controlled congress refuses to release
information showing whether or not the Imperial Princess Pelosi's purported
crime that the CIA lied to congress holds merit or not.

So much for TRANSPARENCY from demcraps tard......

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Faux snooze simply does not represent a legitimate news
source. It is ENTERTAINMEN (with a news format)

I guess that explains why Americans are turning OFF the liberal media whores
and turning ON Fox News.

The Ratings Speak for themselves.....

ROFLMFAO...............

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
For ignorant rightwingers.

More than right wingers are watching Fox News, tard..............

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:18:57 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
You keep forgetting that the 3 major "news" outlets
(faux, Moonie times, and various scaife news rags" were
deliberately started to promote a political agenda.

Really, got something credible to prove that nonsense, tard?

a) from Rupurt Murdoch explaining why he started Faux

b) from the various law suits filed against Faux snooze
for false information---defended by explaining they
were ENTERTAINMENT (with a news format)

c) reasonable observation by anyone who can actually
think for themselves.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:18:57 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
You keep forgetting that the 3 major "news" outlets
(faux, Moonie times, and various scaife news rags" were
deliberately started to promote a political agenda.

Really, got something credible to prove that nonsense, tard?

a) from Rupurt Murdoch explaining why he started Faux
b) from the various law suits filed against Faux snooze
for false information---defended by explaining they
were ENTERTAINMENT (with a news format)

Either you don't know the meaning of credible or you are incredibly naive
and stupid.

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
c) reasonable observation by anyone who can actually
think for themselves.

There's nothing reasonable about your nonsense.....

However what is reasonable is that non-stop news programming as compared to
the old paradigm reporting once every 24-hours (usually evening) has evolved
into much filler programming consisting of News Analysis. This is observed
from my watching the news over a period of 50-years, unlike you who may have
been paying attention since before the last election.

Also, News Commentary used to have to be prefaced with a disclaimer stating
the following is just that, Commentary. Obviously you haven't noticed all
cable news stations, including CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, HNN etc. which have
non-stop reporting, their programming is about 75-90% analysis, not just
FACT REPORTING like the news of 30-40 years ago was. But I don't expect a
12-yr old like you to know such information..........

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:56:07 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
b) from the various law suits filed against Faux snooze
for false information---defended by explaining they
were ENTERTAINMENT (with a news format)

Either you don't know the meaning of credible or you are incredibly naive
and stupid.

I'm not the one watching/listening to an entertainment
channel like Faux and calling it "news", you dingbat.

you are.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:56:07 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Also, News Commentary used to have to be prefaced with a disclaimer stating
the following is just that, Commentary.

Faux is 90% commentary, predicated on promotion of
conservative dogma

The other 10% is slanted by using emotionally driven
inferences to either elevate conservative beliefs, or
ridicule truth.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:56:07 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Also, News Commentary used to have to be prefaced with a disclaimer stating
the following is just that, Commentary.

Faux is 90% commentary,

MSNBC & CNN follows suit, tard.....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
predicated on promotion of
conservative dogma

MSNBC & CNN are predicated on Liberal Fascism.......

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
The other 10% is slanted by using emotionally driven
inferences to either elevate conservative beliefs, or
ridicule truth.

Your inability for an enlightened discussion is so noted tard.......

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:43:58 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Faux is 90% commentary,

MSNBC & CNN follows suit, tard.....

They don't advertise themselves as "fair and balanced
news" you stupid fuck

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:43:58 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Faux is 90% commentary,

MSNBC & CNN follows suit, tard.....

They don't advertise themselves as "fair and balanced
news" you stupid fuck

Well of course they aren't Fair & Balanced like FoxNews. Everyone knows
their in the tank for bamby and the libs, especially after last year's
election coverage and also the tea-party coverage when they harassed
protestors for exercising their constitutional rights to redress
grievances....

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:39:19 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:43:58 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Faux is 90% commentary,

MSNBC & CNN follows suit, tard.....

They don't advertise themselves as "fair and balanced
news" you stupid fuck

Well of course they aren't Fair & Balanced like FoxNews.

When the founder, Rupurt Murdoch, states publicly that
his station is ENTERTAINMENT and is deliberately
targeting a SMALL political demographic, that, along
with observation of their silly operation is sufficient
to conclude they are nothing more than a cable station
with the same crediblity as National Enquirer or the
now defunct "weekly World News"

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:43:58 -0700, "MioMyo"
: <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:

: >> Faux is 90% commentary,
: >
: >MSNBC & CNN follows suit, tard.....

: They don't advertise themselves as "fair and balanced
: news" you stupid fuck

They certainly don't deny that they're the mouthpiece of the dnc.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:56:07 -0700, "MioMyo"
: <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:

: >
: >Also, News Commentary used to have to be prefaced with a disclaimer stating
: >the following is just that, Commentary.

: Faux is 90% commentary, predicated on promotion of
: conservative dogma

: The other 10% is slanted by using emotionally driven
: inferences to either elevate conservative beliefs, or
: ridicule truth.

Your credible proof of this fantasy is...........?????

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:

: <***@SillyWalk.com> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: > On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:18:57 -0700, "MioMyo"
: > <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:
: >
: >>> You keep forgetting that the 3 major "news" outlets
: >>> (faux, Moonie times, and various scaife news rags" were
: >>> deliberately started to promote a political agenda.
: >>
: >>Really, got something credible to prove that nonsense, tard?
: >
: > a) from Rupurt Murdoch explaining why he started Faux
: >
: > b) from the various law suits filed against Faux snooze
: > for false information---defended by explaining they
: > were ENTERTAINMENT (with a news format)

: Either you don't know the meaning of credible or you are incredibly naive
: and stupid.

Haven't you ever heard of the saying "if you can't dazzle them with your briliance
baffle them with your bullshit"? It's clear that the pooper is trying
to baffle with bullshit.

: > c) reasonable observation by anyone who can actually
: > think for themselves.


: There's nothing reasonable about your nonsense.....

: However what is reasonable is that non-stop news programming as compared to
: the old paradigm reporting once every 24-hours (usually evening) has evolved
: into much filler programming consisting of News Analysis. This is observed
: from my watching the news over a period of 50-years, unlike you who may have
: been paying attention since before the last election.

: Also, News Commentary used to have to be prefaced with a disclaimer stating
: the following is just that, Commentary. Obviously you haven't noticed all
: cable news stations, including CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, HNN etc. which have
: non-stop reporting, their programming is about 75-90% analysis, not just
: FACT REPORTING like the news of 30-40 years ago was. But I don't expect a
: 12-yr old like you to know such information..........

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:18:57 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Which, for most self-thinking people, is the antithesis
to a news outlet that tells the truth no matter WHO
likes it.

The truth is tard, that bamby has released damning memos regarding Enhanced
Interrogation Techniques, yet refuses to release the memos which show
information obtained & American Lives these techniques saves.

Any information came from the Bush era, even if it were
written down

There generally are no (specific) notes taken down at
national security briefings.

it's a deflection, a non-issue, you dingbat.

Everyone except the 22% of you dingbats of the right
know it.

That's why identification as a republican is down to
less than 30%.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:18:57 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Which, for most self-thinking people, is the antithesis
to a news outlet that tells the truth no matter WHO
likes it.

The truth is tard, that bamby has released damning memos regarding Enhanced
Interrogation Techniques, yet refuses to release the memos which show
information obtained & American Lives these techniques saves.

Any information came from the Bush era, even if it were
written down
There generally are no (specific) notes taken down at
national security briefings.
it's a deflection, a non-issue, you dingbat.
Everyone except the 22% of you dingbats of the right
know it.
That's why identification as a republican is down to
less than 30%.

What convoluted logic you're straining to sell...

IOW, the CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) which you call torture
from the Bush Administration era are fact-filled & truthful whereas any CIA
information, memos etc., possible even redacted info in those same memos
which provides information explain results of the EIT has got to be a
"Deflection" or inaccurate.

Then you have the audacity to proclaim you understand thee meaning of
"Dingbat."

ROFLMFAO...................

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 07:03:41 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
That's why identification as a republican is down to
less than 30%.

What convoluted logic you're straining to sell...

How is readily available polling and public news
broadcasts "convoluted logic"?

The national polling (on all news outlets,
commentaries, and analysis) are reporting that the
Republican party has sunk to about 29% identification

The biggest gain (even reported by Faux) is that
(so-called) independents gained from the GOP.

Post by MioMyo
IOW, the CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) which you call torture
from the Bush Administration era are fact-filled & truthful

Yes, according to all available representation EXCEPT
from those who advocated it.

Post by MioMyo
whereas any CIA
information, memos etc., possible even redacted info in those same memos
which provides information explain results of the EIT has got to be a
"Deflection" or inaccurate.

The CIA lied consistently up to, and including 2006

That would definitely be relevant to the veracity of
the CIA at the time Pelosi claimed they weren't
truthful.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 07:03:41 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
That's why identification as a republican is down to
less than 30%.

What convoluted logic you're straining to sell...

How is readily available polling and public news
broadcasts "convoluted logic"?
The national polling (on all news outlets,
commentaries, and analysis) are reporting that the
Republican party has sunk to about 29% identification

Try providing some credible source when supposedly quoting scientific data.
That which comes from your anus is not credible tard.....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
The biggest gain (even reported by Faux) is that
(so-called) independents gained from the GOP.

Your citation???

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com

Post by MioMyo
IOW, the CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) which you call torture
from the Bush Administration era are fact-filled & truthful

Yes, according to all available representation EXCEPT
from those who advocated it.

Post by MioMyo
whereas any CIA
information, memos etc., possible even redacted info in those same memos
which provides information explain results of the EIT has got to be a
"Deflection" or inaccurate.

The CIA lied consistently up to, and including 2006

Your credible evidence is?

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
That would definitely be relevant to the veracity of
the CIA at the time Pelosi claimed they weren't
truthful.

IOW, because you say so...... That's just what I thought.....

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:22 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
The national polling (on all news outlets,
commentaries, and analysis) are reporting that the
Republican party has sunk to about 29% identification

Try providing some credible source when supposedly quoting scientific data.
That which comes from your anus is not credible tard.....

I thought that was what "polingreport.com" or Google
was for.

Your arm broke?

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:22 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
The national polling (on all news outlets,
commentaries, and analysis) are reporting that the
Republican party has sunk to about 29% identification

Try providing some credible source when supposedly quoting scientific data.
That which comes from your anus is not credible tard.....

I thought that was what "polingreport.com" or Google
was for.

Can't cite the source url... figures.....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Your arm broke?

Now my burden to prove....

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:

: <***@SillyWalk.com> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:22 -0700, "MioMyo"
: > <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:
: >
: >>> The national polling (on all news outlets,
: >>> commentaries, and analysis) are reporting that the
: >>> Republican party has sunk to about 29% identification
: >>
: >>Try providing some credible source when supposedly quoting scientific
: >>data.
: >>That which comes from your anus is not credible tard.....
: >
: > I thought that was what "polingreport.com" or Google
: > was for.

: Can't cite the source url... figures.....

: > Your arm broke?

: Now my burden to prove....

That's rather typical of the looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem.
They make some idiotic claim and when challenged to provide credible evidence they
demand that the person asking for the credible proof find it for them. The fact is
they made up the claim and they know it.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:29:48 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: Can't cite the source url... figures.....
: > Your arm broke?
: Now my burden to prove....
That's rather typical of the looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem.

Which is a typical, hackneneyed, tactic you whipped and
beaten fuckers use to (I suppose) make yourself feel
better.

I don't need to prove that the earth is round by
"Citation"---the fact that ships disappear over the
horizon and fall of the edge of the earth is/was proven
false---the knowledge the earth is round is an accepted
fact, which any moron (such as yourself) either can
look up (google) or should know as a matter of public
record.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:22 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
The biggest gain (even reported by Faux) is that
(so-called) independents gained from the GOP.

Your citation???

Faux snooze.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:22 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
The biggest gain (even reported by Faux) is that
(so-called) independents gained from the GOP.

Your citation???

Faux snooze.

You mean your anus...

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:22 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
The CIA lied consistently up to, and including 2006

Your credible evidence is?

Oh, sorry

I thought you were in this present century---

Most of the common historical knowledge is quite well
known----

They never did find those "slam-dunk" tons of WMD

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:22 -0700, "MioMyo"
: <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:

: >> The CIA lied consistently up to, and including 2006
: >
: >Your credible evidence is?

: Oh, sorry

: I thought you were in this present century---

: Most of the common historical knowledge is quite well
: known----

: They never did find those "slam-dunk" tons of WMD

Can't prove that they lied I see.

[Glibb BeKKK]

Post by Frank Pittel

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:22 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
The CIA lied consistently up to, and including 2006

Your credible evidence is?

Oh, sorry
I thought you were in this present century---
Most of the common historical knowledge is quite well
known----
They never did find those "slam-dunk" tons of WMD

Can't prove that they lied I see.

The CIA lies and covers up so much, and always has, it' s their mandate,
we'll never ever know in our lifetimes just how much but it's stunning beyond
belief and most likely traitorous...

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican Glibb BeKKK <***@laborhoods.stonecriticalpath.com> wrote:
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: >> On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:49:22 -0700, "MioMyo"
: >> <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:
: >
: >>>> The CIA lied consistently up to, and including 2006
: >>>
: >>> Your credible evidence is?
: >
: >> Oh, sorry
: >
: >> I thought you were in this present century---
: >
: >> Most of the common historical knowledge is quite well
: >> known----
: >
: >> They never did find those "slam-dunk" tons of WMD
: >
: > Can't prove that they lied I see.
: >

: The CIA lies and covers up so much, and always has, it' s their mandate,
: we'll never ever know in our lifetimes just how much but it's stunning beyond
: belief and most likely traitorous...

You're credible evidence that the CIA has lied is.............????

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:51 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: The CIA lies and covers up so much, and always has, it' s their mandate,
: we'll never ever know in our lifetimes just how much but it's stunning beyond
: belief and most likely traitorous...
You're credible evidence that the CIA has lied is.............????

"Iraq has tons of WMD.... a "slam dunk"----CIA to
congress.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:51 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >: The CIA lies and covers up so much, and always has, it' s their mandate,
: >: we'll never ever know in our lifetimes just how much but it's stunning beyond
: >: belief and most likely traitorous...
: >
: >You're credible evidence that the CIA has lied is.............????

: "Iraq has tons of WMD.... a "slam dunk"----CIA to
: congress.

You're credible evidence that it was a lie is.................???????
Before responding make be sure to look up the word "lie" in a dictionary.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Frank Pittel
: On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:51 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >: The CIA lies and covers up so much, and always has, it' s their mandate,
: >: we'll never ever know in our lifetimes just how much but it's stunning beyond
: >: belief and most likely traitorous...
: >
: >You're credible evidence that the CIA has lied is.............????
: "Iraq has tons of WMD.... a "slam dunk"----CIA to
: congress.
You're credible evidence that it was a lie is.................???????
Before responding make be sure to look up the word "lie" in a dictionary.

You might want to explain the U.S.'s inability to find any WMD in
spite of beating the bushes after we invaded Iraq, and the U.S. beat
the bushes hard enough to find Saddam hiding in his "spider
hole". Here's a picture of it (with coverings and whatnot removed):
<Loading Image...>.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican Bill Z. <***@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
: Frank Pittel <***@warlock.deepthought.com> writes:

: > In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: > : On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:51 -0500, Frank Pittel
: > : <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: > : >: The CIA lies and covers up so much, and always has, it' s their mandate,
: > : >: we'll never ever know in our lifetimes just how much but it's stunning beyond
: > : >: belief and most likely traitorous...
: > : >
: > : >You're credible evidence that the CIA has lied is.............????
: >
: > : "Iraq has tons of WMD.... a "slam dunk"----CIA to
: > : congress.
: >
: > You're credible evidence that it was a lie is.................???????
: > Before responding make be sure to look up the word "lie" in a dictionary.

: You might want to explain the U.S.'s inability to find any WMD in
: spite of beating the bushes after we invaded Iraq, and the U.S. beat
: the bushes hard enough to find Saddam hiding in his "spider
: hole". Here's a picture of it (with coverings and whatnot removed):
: <http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0401/images/hondros3.jpg>.

I see we have another looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem
that has no idea of what the word "lie" means.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and look up the word "lie" in a dictionary
and then ask yourself how your post does anything to prove that the CIA lied about
WMD.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Frank Pittel
: > : On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:51 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >
: > : >: The CIA lies and covers up so much, and always has, it' s their mandate,
: > : >: we'll never ever know in our lifetimes just how much but it's stunning beyond
: > : >: belief and most likely traitorous...
: > : >
: > : >You're credible evidence that the CIA has lied is.............????
: >
: > : "Iraq has tons of WMD.... a "slam dunk"----CIA to
: > : congress.
: >
: > You're credible evidence that it was a lie is.................???????
: > Before responding make be sure to look up the word "lie" in a dictionary.
: You might want to explain the U.S.'s inability to find any WMD in
: spite of beating the bushes after we invaded Iraq, and the U.S. beat
: the bushes hard enough to find Saddam hiding in his "spider
: <http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0401/images/hondros3.jpg>.
I see we have another looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem
that has no idea of what the word "lie" means.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and look up the word "lie" in a
dictionary and then ask yourself how your post does anything to
prove that the CIA lied about WMD.

Why don't you take a 3rd grade course in reading comprehension. You
obviously need it - either that or you are trying to put up a smoke
screen because the WMD lie is so obvious. Whether it was the CIA
that lied or whether the administration lied about what the CIA
reported is irrelevant.

BTW, the main source of the WMD claims seemed to be people in a group
that was run by Ahmed Chalabi (who was convicted in absentia for a
massive bank fraud in Jordan). That the CIA would not suspect that
anyone associated iwth Chalabi might be more than a tad dubious is
not credible. Either the CIA lied or there was a distressing lack
of competence or someone lied about what the CIA said.

Then there is
<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030707/dreyfuss>:

The same unit [the Office of Special Plans] that fed Chalabi's
intelligence on WMD to Rumsfeld was also feeding him Chalabi's
stuff on the prospects for postwar Iraq," said a leading US
government expert on the Middle East. Says a former US
ambassador with strong links to the CIA: "There was certainly
information coming from the Iraqi exile community, including
Chalabi--who was detested by the CIA and by the State
Department--saying, 'They will welcome you with open arms.'"
Rumsfeld's willingness to accept that view led him to
contradict the Chief of Staff of the US Army, who predicted
that it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to control
Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, a view that seems prescient
today.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican Bill Z. <***@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
: Frank Pittel <***@warlock.deepthought.com> writes:

: > In alt.politics.usa.republican Bill Z. <***@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
: > : Frank Pittel <***@warlock.deepthought.com> writes:
: >
: > : > In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: > : > : On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:51 -0500, Frank Pittel
: > : > : <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : >: The CIA lies and covers up so much, and always has, it' s their mandate,
: > : > : >: we'll never ever know in our lifetimes just how much but it's stunning beyond
: > : > : >: belief and most likely traitorous...
: > : > : >
: > : > : >You're credible evidence that the CIA has lied is.............????
: > : >
: > : > : "Iraq has tons of WMD.... a "slam dunk"----CIA to
: > : > : congress.
: > : >
: > : > You're credible evidence that it was a lie is.................???????
: > : > Before responding make be sure to look up the word "lie" in a dictionary.
: >
: > : You might want to explain the U.S.'s inability to find any WMD in
: > : spite of beating the bushes after we invaded Iraq, and the U.S. beat
: > : the bushes hard enough to find Saddam hiding in his "spider
: > : hole". Here's a picture of it (with coverings and whatnot removed):
: > : <http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0401/images/hondros3.jpg>.
: >
: > I see we have another looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem
: > that has no idea of what the word "lie" means.
: >
: > Why don't you do yourself a favor and look up the word "lie" in a
: > dictionary and then ask yourself how your post does anything to
: > prove that the CIA lied about WMD.

: Why don't you take a 3rd grade course in reading comprehension. You
: obviously need it - either that or you are trying to put up a smoke
: screen because the WMD lie is so obvious. Whether it was the CIA
: that lied or whether the administration lied about what the CIA
: reported is irrelevant.

If it's so obvious you won't have any trouble finding credible proof of it.

: BTW, the main source of the WMD claims seemed to be people in a group
: that was run by Ahmed Chalabi (who was convicted in absentia for a
: massive bank fraud in Jordan). That the CIA would not suspect that
: anyone associated iwth Chalabi might be more than a tad dubious is
: not credible. Either the CIA lied or there was a distressing lack
: of competence or someone lied about what the CIA said.

Prove it.

: Then there is
: <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030707/dreyfuss>:

The nation is a well known leftwing hate spewing kook site
and isn't even close to being credible. Try finding some credible
proof.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 07:56:40 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: Why don't you take a 3rd grade course in reading comprehension. You
: obviously need it - either that or you are trying to put up a smoke
: screen because the WMD lie is so obvious. Whether it was the CIA
: that lied or whether the administration lied about what the CIA
: reported is irrelevant.
If it's so obvious you won't have any trouble finding credible proof of it.

The proof is the historical and public record of the
difference between the claims and the actual facts.

Bush made representations of claims that HE said were
"truth"

They were PROVEN false prior to his attack on
Iraq---all the while maintaining they were still true

The public record shows he KNEW they were false and
rushed the attack so that no debate or further evidence
could stop him

That is lying.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 00:25:09 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
I see we have another looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem
that has no idea of what the word "lie" means.

See, there you go again

The facts and evidence cannot support the claims Bush
made

And you're arguing, despite ALL evidence to the
contrary, that nothing is amiss.

Bush made specific claims, received evidence that
proved it wrong, but continued to insist it was factual

That's lying.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Tue, 26 May 2009 00:25:09 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >I see we have another looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem
: >that has no idea of what the word "lie" means.


: See, there you go again

: The facts and evidence cannot support the claims Bush
: made

: And you're arguing, despite ALL evidence to the
: contrary, that nothing is amiss.

: Bush made specific claims, received evidence that
: proved it wrong, but continued to insist it was factual

Prove that he lied.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 07:53:51 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: Bush made specific claims, received evidence that
: proved it wrong, but continued to insist it was factual
Prove that he lied.

Public knowledge

All of his claims of "truth" were proven false

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 21:45:41 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: >
: >You're credible evidence that the CIA has lied is.............????
: "Iraq has tons of WMD.... a "slam dunk"----CIA to
: congress.
You're credible evidence that it was a lie is.................???????

Where are the WMD that we KNEW weren't there before we
attacked?

If you insist on saying something is true---even though
evidence proves you wrong----that, by any definition,
is LYING.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Mon, 25 May 2009 21:45:41 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >: >
: >: >You're credible evidence that the CIA has lied is.............????
: >
: >: "Iraq has tons of WMD.... a "slam dunk"----CIA to
: >: congress.
: >
: >You're credible evidence that it was a lie is.................???????

: Where are the WMD that we KNEW weren't there before we
: attacked?

: If you insist on saying something is true---even though
: evidence proves you wrong----that, by any definition,
: is LYING.

The definition of the word "lie" can be found in the dictionary.
It doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 07:52:55 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: If you insist on saying something is true---even though
: evidence proves you wrong----that, by any definition,
: is LYING.
The definition of the word "lie" can be found in the dictionary.
It doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

THe definition of "perjury" is quite clear in a
dictionary

But it isn't fact that merly "lying under oath" is
automatically perjury

Making a "definition" in a dictionary stupid when
trying to apply it to an issue.

[Fredric L. Rice]

Post by Glibb BeKKK
The CIA lies and covers up so much, and always has, it' s their mandate,
we'll never ever know in our lifetimes just how much but it's stunning beyond
belief and most likely traitorous...

To be fair, the CIA's and the FBI's charters were never about law
enforcement or "keeping Americns safe." The CIA is the world's worse
terrorist organization bar none, operating the world's worse terrorist
training camp "School Of The Americas." The latest round of exposure
of what the CIA actually is and what it does is mild compared to all
the previous not-so-surprising revelations before now.

---
First offense they should get mandatory gay marriages.
Second offense they get mandatory gay abortions.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:27:18 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: They never did find those "slam-dunk" tons of WMD
Can't prove that they lied I see.

It was YOUR claim that Iraq (list of Bush's claims
here) had tons of WMD

You can't prove they did, you can't rebut the fact
there were NONE found, and can't rebut the fact that we
KNEW prior to Feb 2003 that none were there.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:27:18 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >
: >: They never did find those "slam-dunk" tons of WMD
: >
: >Can't prove that they lied I see.

: It was YOUR claim that Iraq (list of Bush's claims
: here) had tons of WMD

: You can't prove they did, you can't rebut the fact
: there were NONE found, and can't rebut the fact that we
: KNEW prior to Feb 2003 that none were there.

Prove that Bush lied. It's clear from posts you've made
in other threads that you don't know what the word "lie"
means. Do yourself a favor and look up the word in a dictionary
before replying.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:03 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:27:18 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >
: >: They never did find those "slam-dunk" tons of WMD
: >
: >Can't prove that they lied I see.
: It was YOUR claim that Iraq (list of Bush's claims
: here) had tons of WMD
: You can't prove they did, you can't rebut the fact
: there were NONE found, and can't rebut the fact that we
: KNEW prior to Feb 2003 that none were there.
Prove that Bush lied.

Every claim bush made to gain the "vote to authorize"
was a lie

What fucking more do you need?

Worse yet, he was still lying about it AFTER Feb 2003
when we KNEW it was all false.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:03 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: >: On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:27:18 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: >: >
: >: >: They never did find those "slam-dunk" tons of WMD
: >: >
: >: >Can't prove that they lied I see.
: >
: >: It was YOUR claim that Iraq (list of Bush's claims
: >: here) had tons of WMD
: >
: >: You can't prove they did, you can't rebut the fact
: >: there were NONE found, and can't rebut the fact that we
: >: KNEW prior to Feb 2003 that none were there.
: >
: >Prove that Bush lied.

: Every claim bush made to gain the "vote to authorize"
: was a lie

Prove it. Credible evidence only need apply. Nothing you pull
out of your ass is credible.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 18:30:57 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: Every claim bush made to gain the "vote to authorize"
: was a lie
Prove it. Credible evidence only need apply.

What the fuck is wrong with you PittelLoon?

There is NO public record of any of Bush's claims being
true

Every claim he made was bogus, from claiming Saddam was
trying to buy "yellow cake"---to "moble labs"...to
"tons of WMD ready to be used immediately"

The truth was known in Feb 2003 that the stated
justification given to congress was not true

Denying and demanding "proof" that it wasn't is simply
juvenile

The public record of the falsity of his claims is
accepted public knowledge

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Mon, 25 May 2009 18:30:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >
: >: Every claim bush made to gain the "vote to authorize"
: >: was a lie
: >
: >Prove it. Credible evidence only need apply.

: What the fuck is wrong with you PittelLoon?

: There is NO public record of any of Bush's claims being
: true

That doesn't make them lies.

: Every claim he made was bogus, from claiming Saddam was
: trying to buy "yellow cake"---to "moble labs"...to
: "tons of WMD ready to be used immediately"

Prove they were lies.

: The truth was known in Feb 2003 that the stated
: justification given to congress was not true

: Denying and demanding "proof" that it wasn't is simply
: juvenile

: The public record of the falsity of his claims is
: accepted public knowledge

Prove that he lied. Next time try looking up the word
"lie" in a dictionary.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 22:26:48 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: On Mon, 25 May 2009 18:30:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >
: >: Every claim bush made to gain the "vote to authorize"
: >: was a lie
: >
: >Prove it. Credible evidence only need apply.
: What the fuck is wrong with you PittelLoon?
: There is NO public record of any of Bush's claims being
: true
That doesn't make them lies.
: Every claim he made was bogus, from claiming Saddam was
: trying to buy "yellow cake"---to "moble labs"...to
: "tons of WMD ready to be used immediately"
Prove they were lies.
: The truth was known in Feb 2003 that the stated
: justification given to congress was not true
: Denying and demanding "proof" that it wasn't is simply
: juvenile
: The public record of the falsity of his claims is
: accepted public knowledge
Prove that he lied. Next time try looking up the word
"lie" in a dictionary.

You're crazier than a loon, FrankieLoon

The dictionary definition of "perjury" has little to do
with the legal definition and requirements to be such,
"lying" definition dependent on other factors

When you use false facts and evidence to get something,
that's lying

Bush used false facts to gain a vote from congress

Bush also KNEW the facts were faulty--and by Feb 2003
KNEW they were all not true.

Yet he ordered the Attack on Iraq

That's LYING in anyone's world.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Mon, 25 May 2009 22:26:48 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: >: On Mon, 25 May 2009 18:30:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: >: >
: >: >: Every claim bush made to gain the "vote to authorize"
: >: >: was a lie
: >: >
: >: >Prove it. Credible evidence only need apply.
: >
: >: What the fuck is wrong with you PittelLoon?
: >
: >: There is NO public record of any of Bush's claims being
: >: true
: >
: >That doesn't make them lies.
: >
: >: Every claim he made was bogus, from claiming Saddam was
: >: trying to buy "yellow cake"---to "moble labs"...to
: >: "tons of WMD ready to be used immediately"
: >
: >Prove they were lies.
: >
: >: The truth was known in Feb 2003 that the stated
: >: justification given to congress was not true
: >
: >: Denying and demanding "proof" that it wasn't is simply
: >: juvenile
: >
: >: The public record of the falsity of his claims is
: >: accepted public knowledge
: >
: >Prove that he lied. Next time try looking up the word
: >"lie" in a dictionary.

: You're crazier than a loon, FrankieLoon

: The dictionary definition of "perjury" has little to do
: with the legal definition and requirements to be such,
: "lying" definition dependent on other factors

Prove it. A lie is a lie. The word has a meaning that goes
beyond what you want it to mean.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 07:51:41 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
Prove it. A lie is a lie. The word has a meaning that goes
beyond what you want it to mean.

Bullshit

The practical or technical application of any
definition supercedes the dictionary definition

That's why you cannot call a "lie under oath",
"perjury", even when the "definition" clearly states
it.

[LGs Garison]

Post by Frank Pittel
: What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway? After all if the
: CIA lied to the Imperial Princess Pelosi, crimes were committed and people
: should be made to face charges, RIGHT?
The problem is that if the investigation went forward the whore of the house
and all the other looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems that
rushed to her defense would have to provide proof of their claims and they
don't have that proof.

In America, she has to be proven GUILTY. All you have is FOX. A known
harbinger of lies, conjecture and innuendo.
Good luck, Herr Goebbels.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican LGs Garison <W. Dubya ***@kenyatexas.net> wrote:

: "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: news:guWdndrp-***@giganews.com...
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:
: > : What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway? After all if
: > the
: > : CIA lied to the Imperial Princess Pelosi, crimes were committed and
: > people
: > : should be made to face charges, RIGHT?
: >
: > The problem is that if the investigation went forward the whore of the
: > house
: > and all the other looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems that
: > rushed to her defense would have to provide proof of their claims and they
: > don't have that proof.

: In America, she has to be proven GUILTY. All you have is FOX. A known
: harbinger of lies, conjecture and innuendo.
: Good luck, Herr Goebbels.

The whore of the house accused the CIA of lying. It is a crime for the CIA of
lying to congress. Since the whore of the house made the accusation it is up
to her to prove her claim.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:16:59 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: In America, she has to be proven GUILTY. All you have is FOX. A known
: harbinger of lies, conjecture and innuendo.
: Good luck, Herr Goebbels.
The whore of the house accused the CIA of lying.

and WHY, after years of it lying to us about Iraq,
Iran, South America, would it be outside their
behavior?

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:16:59 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: In America, she has to be proven GUILTY. All you have is FOX. A known
: harbinger of lies, conjecture and innuendo.
: Good luck, Herr Goebbels.
The whore of the house accused the CIA of lying.

and WHY, after years of it lying to us about Iraq,
Iran, South America, would it be outside their
behavior?

Inaccurate intelligence is NOT lying, tard whereas lying to congress is.

Since the Imperial Princess Pelosi ASSERTS THE CIA LIED, it is both her
responsibility & duty to prove it and press for a grand jury to charge the
guilty parties......

So let's put all involved parties under oath, the princess can surely help
by identifying who the CIA culprit liar(s) are.....

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:47:21 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:16:59 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: In America, she has to be proven GUILTY. All you have is FOX. A known
: harbinger of lies, conjecture and innuendo.
: Good luck, Herr Goebbels.
The whore of the house accused the CIA of lying.

and WHY, after years of it lying to us about Iraq,
Iran, South America, would it be outside their
behavior?

Inaccurate intelligence is NOT lying, tard whereas lying to congress is.

It was false, puffed up to coincide with goals of
Cheney/Bush

WORSE---the GOP congress refused to re-open hearings
after Jan 2003--when ALL the stated claims made by
Bush's administration were PROVEN to be false.

We knew that SADDAM had nothing BEFORE we attacked.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:47:21 -0700, "MioMyo"
: <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:

: >
: ><***@SillyWalk.com> wrote in message
: >news:***@4ax.com...
: >> On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:16:59 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >> <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >>
: >>>: In America, she has to be proven GUILTY. All you have is FOX. A known
: >>>: harbinger of lies, conjecture and innuendo.
: >>>: Good luck, Herr Goebbels.
: >>>
: >>>The whore of the house accused the CIA of lying.
: >>
: >> and WHY, after years of it lying to us about Iraq,
: >> Iran, South America, would it be outside their
: >> behavior?
: >
: >
: >Inaccurate intelligence is NOT lying, tard whereas lying to congress is.

: It was false, puffed up to coincide with goals of
: Cheney/Bush

Being wrong doesn't make them liars. You may want to crack open
a dictionary and look up the word "lie".

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:11:56 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:47:21 -0700, "MioMyo"
: >
: >> On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:16:59 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >>
: >>>: In America, she has to be proven GUILTY. All you have is FOX. A known
: >>>: harbinger of lies, conjecture and innuendo.
: >>>: Good luck, Herr Goebbels.
: >>>
: >>>The whore of the house accused the CIA of lying.
: >>
: >> and WHY, after years of it lying to us about Iraq,
: >> Iran, South America, would it be outside their
: >> behavior?
: >
: >
: >Inaccurate intelligence is NOT lying, tard whereas lying to congress is.
: It was false, puffed up to coincide with goals of
: Cheney/Bush
Being wrong doesn't make them liars.

Yes it does

They knew they were wrong before they attacked. They
hid the truth

The "yellow cake" claims were lies

They knew they were lies

THREE separate envoys told them they were false claims

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:11:56 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: >: On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:47:21 -0700, "MioMyo"
: >: <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:
: >
: >: >
: >: ><***@SillyWalk.com> wrote in message
: >: >news:***@4ax.com...
: >: >> On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:16:59 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >: >> <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >: >>
: >: >>>: In America, she has to be proven GUILTY. All you have is FOX. A known
: >: >>>: harbinger of lies, conjecture and innuendo.
: >: >>>: Good luck, Herr Goebbels.
: >: >>>
: >: >>>The whore of the house accused the CIA of lying.
: >: >>
: >: >> and WHY, after years of it lying to us about Iraq,
: >: >> Iran, South America, would it be outside their
: >: >> behavior?
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >Inaccurate intelligence is NOT lying, tard whereas lying to congress is.
: >
: >: It was false, puffed up to coincide with goals of
: >: Cheney/Bush
: >
: >Being wrong doesn't make them liars.

: Yes it does

Try looking up the word "lie" in the dictionary.

: They knew they were wrong before they attacked. They
: hid the truth

Prove it.

: The "yellow cake" claims were lies

Prove it.

: They knew they were lies

Prove it.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:47:21 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:16:59 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: In America, she has to be proven GUILTY. All you have is FOX. A known
: harbinger of lies, conjecture and innuendo.
: Good luck, Herr Goebbels.
The whore of the house accused the CIA of lying.

and WHY, after years of it lying to us about Iraq,
Iran, South America, would it be outside their
behavior?

Inaccurate intelligence is NOT lying, tard whereas lying to congress is.

It was false, puffed up to coincide with goals of
Cheney/Bush

You TOO can prove the CIA lied to congress?

Do bring that proof forward tard.

Then again, it appears that many intellegence agencies the world over held
the same intel, so your bar is high, tard......

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
WORSE---the GOP congress refused to re-open hearings
after Jan 2003--when ALL the stated claims made by
Bush's administration were PROVEN to be false.

What do you think was proven false, tard?

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
We knew that SADDAM had nothing BEFORE we attacked.

Not finding, is not the same as not having, just like incorrect intel is not
the same as lying tard.......

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:25:49 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
It was false, puffed up to coincide with goals of
Cheney/Bush

You TOO can prove the CIA lied to congress?

No WMD

No "Yellow cake"

No Collusion with Saddam

No Collusion with Bin Laden

No Missiles to carry WMD

No "aluminum tubes"

No threat to the US

No mandate from the authority dealing with
the issue (UN)

NONE of what Bush claimed was true---and we KNEW it
prior to the attack.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:25:49 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
It was false, puffed up to coincide with goals of
Cheney/Bush

You TOO can prove the CIA lied to congress?

No WMD

No Brains....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No "Yellow cake"

You have no Argument....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No Collusion with Saddam

You make no Sense....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No Collusion with Bin Laden

You speak no Logic....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No Missiles to carry WMD

You're filled with Hatred...

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No "aluminum tubes"

And you spew nothing but Lies.....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No threat to the US

Innuendo & Slander for those who challlenge and disagree with you...

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No mandate from the authority dealing with
the issue (UN)

You life is nothing but Propaganda....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
NONE of what Bush claimed was true---and we KNEW it
prior to the attack.

Yepper... you're truly a fascist liberal alright and not even one in
drag...............

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:23:06 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:25:49 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
It was false, puffed up to coincide with goals of
Cheney/Bush

You TOO can prove the CIA lied to congress?

No WMD

No Brains....

Are you saying there were?

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No "Yellow cake"

You have no Argument....

Didnt THREE (3) different envoys tell Bush that the
"yellow cake" reason given was bogus?

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No Collusion with Saddam

You make no Sense....

Bush's claim to justify attacking Iraq.

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No Collusion with Bin Laden

Bush's claim to justify attacking Iraq

Post by MioMyo
You speak no Logic....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No Missiles to carry WMD

You're filled with Hatred...

IOW you can't offer any substantive rebuttal at all?

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No "aluminum tubes"

And you spew nothing but Lies.....

Look it up

Bush said "aluminum tubes" proved that Saddam was using
them as nuclear weaponry manufacture. Am I not right?

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No threat to the US

Innuendo & Slander for those who challlenge and disagree with you...

Yet you can't rebut any of it.

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
No mandate from the authority dealing with
the issue (UN)

You life is nothing but Propaganda....

Wouldn't someone who believed the massive propaganda
leading up to the war (and after) be a better example
of a dumb asshole who believes propaganda?

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
NONE of what Bush claimed was true---and we KNEW it
prior to the attack.

Yepper... you're truly a fascist liberal alright and not even one in
drag...............

Yet no rebuttal of the facts.

SNICKER

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:23:06 -0700, "MioMyo"

I feel your pain Poop. Furthermore, I love dishing you more intense pain by
force feeding you the simple truth.

And here the simple facts are the Imperial Princess Pelosi claims the CIA
lies to congress- a FELONY BTW....

So all she needs to do is SIMPLY PROVE IT.................

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:58:18 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
And here the simple facts are the Imperial Princess Pelosi claims the CIA
lies to congress- a FELONY BTW....

Nonsense

Cite the US Code and section that sillyness comes from

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:58:18 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
And here the simple facts are the Imperial Princess Pelosi claims the CIA
lies to congress- a FELONY BTW....

Nonsense
Cite the US Code and section that sillyness comes from

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 >
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) ... whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
knowingly and willfully-
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a
material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain
any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the
offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section
2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. ....

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative
branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to-

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:

: <***@SillyWalk.com> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 06:58:18 -0700, "MioMyo"
: > <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>And here the simple facts are the Imperial Princess Pelosi claims the CIA
: >>lies to congress- a FELONY BTW....
: >
: > Nonsense
: >
: > Cite the US Code and section that sillyness comes from


: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 >
: ?? 1001. Statements or entries generally

: (a) ... whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
: legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
: knowingly and willfully-
: (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a
: material fact;
: (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
: representation; or
: (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain
: any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

: shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the
: offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section
: 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. ....

: (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative
: branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to-

You put the pooper in his place.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:23:25 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to-
You put the pooper in his place.

Didn't

For the same reason that "perjury" could not be leveled
against clinton in ANYTHING he said during his tenure.

None of the 3 requirements were proven to be applicable

You idiots simply aren't smart enough for this, are
you?

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:49:48 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) ... whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
knowingly and willfully-
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a
material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain
any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

That's a congressionally worded, 3 part, statute
covering "perjury", and all must be substantiated
(proven)

NONE Of which applies to Pelosi


It also is used in SWORN testimony before committees,
not statements related to instances where NO evidence
suggests the claim is not believed to be true.

You lose again.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:

: <***@SillyWalk.com> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: > On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:23:06 -0700, "MioMyo"
: > <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:
: >

: I feel your pain Poop. Furthermore, I love dishing you more intense pain by
: force feeding you the simple truth.

: And here the simple facts are the Imperial Princess Pelosi claims the CIA
: lies to congress- a FELONY BTW....

: So all she needs to do is SIMPLY PROVE IT.................

The problem is that the whore of the house can't prove it and she knows it.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:22:30 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: So all she needs to do is SIMPLY PROVE IT.................
The problem is that the whore of the house can't prove it and she knows it.

Even a dumb asshole like you don't need "proof" of what
she said, FrankieLoon

1) the CIA lied consistently from the onset of Bush's
first term

2) The CIA testified (falsely) that Iraq had (SLAM
DUNK) WMD

3) Bush made over a half dozen STRONG citations of FACT
about what Iraq had----all of which were FALSE

4) Bush's Administration attempted (and did) destroy
CIA operatives who tried to tell the truth about the
lies (much like the GOP is doing today to Pelosi)

5) Cheney is quite clear that the torture DID take
place (once denied by the CIA), and that it was "okay"
to do so.

6) The historical lying of Bush's CIA is sufficient for
any rational person to conclude that ONE Of their
defenses would be to lie about who was told and when.

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:22:30 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >: So all she needs to do is SIMPLY PROVE IT.................
: >
: >The problem is that the whore of the house can't prove it and she knows it.

: Even a dumb asshole like you don't need "proof" of what
: she said, FrankieLoon

: 1) the CIA lied consistently from the onset of Bush's
: first term

Prove it.

: 2) The CIA testified (falsely) that Iraq had (SLAM
: DUNK) WMD

Prove that it was a lie.

: 3) Bush made over a half dozen STRONG citations of FACT
: about what Iraq had----all of which were FALSE

Prove that it was a lie.

: 4) Bush's Administration attempted (and did) destroy
: CIA operatives who tried to tell the truth about the
: lies (much like the GOP is doing today to Pelosi)

Prove it.

: 5) Cheney is quite clear that the torture DID take
: place (once denied by the CIA), and that it was "okay"
: to do so.

Waterboarding isn't torture.

: 6) The historical lying of Bush's CIA is sufficient for
: any rational person to conclude that ONE Of their
: defenses would be to lie about who was told and when.

Prove it.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 14:03:05 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:22:30 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >: So all she needs to do is SIMPLY PROVE IT.................
: >
: >The problem is that the whore of the house can't prove it and she knows it.
: Even a dumb asshole like you don't need "proof" of what
: she said, FrankieLoon
: 1) the CIA lied consistently from the onset of Bush's
: first term
Prove it.

Public record. No evidence exists to support the
claims made.

Post by Frank Pittel
: 2) The CIA testified (falsely) that Iraq had (SLAM
: DUNK) WMD
Prove that it was a lie.

See above.

Post by Frank Pittel
: 3) Bush made over a half dozen STRONG citations of FACT
: about what Iraq had----all of which were FALSE
Prove that it was a lie.

See above

No evidence existed then, or now to support their
claim. That is lying.

Post by Frank Pittel
: 4) Bush's Administration attempted (and did) destroy
: CIA operatives who tried to tell the truth about the
: lies (much like the GOP is doing today to Pelosi)
Prove it.

Scooter Libby was nailed, the record (public) is clear
that Valeria Plame was a CIA Operative whom they outed.
Cheney attempted to discredit Joe Wilson (public
record)

Post by Frank Pittel
: 5) Cheney is quite clear that the torture DID take
: place (once denied by the CIA), and that it was "okay"
: to do so.
Waterboarding isn't torture.

It is. Only Cheney says it isnt'

Which is the point you dumb asshole

Post by Frank Pittel
: 6) The historical lying of Bush's CIA is sufficient for
: any rational person to conclude that ONE Of their
: defenses would be to lie about who was told and when.
Prove it.

SNICKER

Are you saying you can't read?

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Mon, 25 May 2009 14:03:05 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: >: On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:22:30 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: >: >: So all she needs to do is SIMPLY PROVE IT.................
: >: >
: >: >The problem is that the whore of the house can't prove it and she knows it.
: >
: >: Even a dumb asshole like you don't need "proof" of what
: >: she said, FrankieLoon
: >
: >: 1) the CIA lied consistently from the onset of Bush's
: >: first term
: >
: >Prove it.

: Public record. No evidence exists to support the
: claims made.

At least you admit that there is no evidence to support your idiotic claims.

: >: 2) The CIA testified (falsely) that Iraq had (SLAM
: >: DUNK) WMD
: >
: >Prove that it was a lie.

: See above.

Another claim that you can't prove.

: >: 3) Bush made over a half dozen STRONG citations of FACT
: >: about what Iraq had----all of which were FALSE
: >
: >Prove that it was a lie.

: See above

More claims with no proof.

: No evidence existed then, or now to support their
: claim. That is lying.

You need to look up the word "lie". You don't even know what
a lie is.

: >: 4) Bush's Administration attempted (and did) destroy
: >: CIA operatives who tried to tell the truth about the
: >: lies (much like the GOP is doing today to Pelosi)
: >
: >Prove it.

: Scooter Libby was nailed, the record (public) is clear
: that Valeria Plame was a CIA Operative whom they outed.
: Cheney attempted to discredit Joe Wilson (public
: record)

You proved nothing. Unless of course you can prove that Plame
was "destroyed" by the Bush admin for disagreeing with it. Joe
Wilson lied when he claimed that Cheney sent him to South Africa.
All Cheney did was tell the truth about it.


: >: 5) Cheney is quite clear that the torture DID take
: >: place (once denied by the CIA), and that it was "okay"
: >: to do so.
: >
: >Waterboarding isn't torture.

: It is. Only Cheney says it isnt'

A lot more people then Cheney says it isn't torture.

: Which is the point you dumb asshole

The point is that you're an idiot that runs around making claims
that can't be proven.

: >: 6) The historical lying of Bush's CIA is sufficient for
: >: any rational person to conclude that ONE Of their
: >: defenses would be to lie about who was told and when.
: >
: >Prove it.

: SNICKER

: Are you saying you can't read?

Can't prove that one either I see.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 22:25:06 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: Public record. No evidence exists to support the
: claims made.
At least you admit that there is no evidence to support your idiotic claims.

There is no evidence to support BUSH'S claims

[Frank Pittel]

In alt.politics.usa.republican ***@sillywalk.com wrote:
: On Mon, 25 May 2009 22:25:06 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >: Public record. No evidence exists to support the
: >: claims made.
: >
: >At least you admit that there is no evidence to support your idiotic claims.


: There is no evidence to support BUSH'S claims

Prove he lied.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 07:48:18 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: There is no evidence to support BUSH'S claims
Prove he lied.

THere is no evidence to support Bush's claims

"dictionaries" are not relevant to the facts and
evidence.

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:25:49 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
WORSE---the GOP congress refused to re-open hearings
after Jan 2003--when ALL the stated claims made by
Bush's administration were PROVEN to be false.

What do you think was proven false, tard?

NONE of the stated reasons given congress to prompt t
hem to vote for the "use of force" was
true by Jan 2003, you moron.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:25:49 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
WORSE---the GOP congress refused to re-open hearings
after Jan 2003--when ALL the stated claims made by
Bush's administration were PROVEN to be false.

What do you think was proven false, tard?

NONE of the stated reasons given congress to prompt t
hem to vote for the "use of force" was
true by Jan 2003, you moron.

Just like the Imperial Princess who recently got dressed down for her lies,
you too will one day have to pay retribution for all your prevarication,
slander and innuendo...

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:31:17 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:25:49 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
WORSE---the GOP congress refused to re-open hearings
after Jan 2003--when ALL the stated claims made by
Bush's administration were PROVEN to be false.

What do you think was proven false, tard?

NONE of the stated reasons given congress to prompt t
hem to vote for the "use of force" was
true by Jan 2003, you moron.

Just like the Imperial Princess who recently got dressed down for her lies,

She was accused of lying by the lying assholes who lied
to us in the first place

A rational, self-thinking person would (or should)
question the institution and individuals who lied us
into war calling others "liars"

Yet you don't

That's ample proof of what zero you are.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:31:17 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:25:49 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
WORSE---the GOP congress refused to re-open hearings
after Jan 2003--when ALL the stated claims made by
Bush's administration were PROVEN to be false.

What do you think was proven false, tard?

NONE of the stated reasons given congress to prompt t
hem to vote for the "use of force" was
true by Jan 2003, you moron.

Just like the Imperial Princess who recently got dressed down for her lies,

She was accused of lying by the lying assholes who lied
to us in the first place

Wrong... SHE MADE the Assertion that the CIA Lied.

Although I love watching you contorting into knots trying to defend the
bitch, it is NOW her responsibility to prove her claim.....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
A rational, self-thinking person would (or should)
question the institution and individuals who lied us
into war calling others "liars"

Actually a rational person would ask that you, the accuser claiming someon
LIED us into war would prove that claim too. Your assertion, like the
imperial princess's is not purely accepted on it's face value.

PROVE IT... kunt....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Yet you don't

Yet you never have, nor never will.....

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
That's ample proof of what zero you are.

Your inability to process simple deductive logic is so noted tard.....

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:14:43 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
She was accused of lying by the lying assholes who lied
to us in the first place

Wrong... SHE MADE the Assertion that the CIA Lied.

BWHAHAHAHA

"Asserting" isn't a crime you dimwitted fuck

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:14:43 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
She was accused of lying by the lying assholes who lied
to us in the first place

Wrong... SHE MADE the Assertion that the CIA Lied.

BWHAHAHAHA
"Asserting" isn't a crime you dimwitted fuck

But lying to congress is, so if the CIA lied, they broke the law. Since
Pelosi knows about this crime, she is duty bound to have charges filed.....

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:51:56 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
"Asserting" isn't a crime you dimwitted fuck

But lying to congress is, so if the CIA lied, they broke the law.

THe CIA would have had to fulfill the 3 requirements of
the statute, under oath, and in an official capacity
during an investigation

You simply haven't a fucking clue as to how law works

"Swiftboaters" could "testify" to all kinds of
allegations---even under oath on a deposition

Flowers, Willy, Jones could likewise, but be free of
any criminal act unless they did so IN COURT, UNDER
OATH.

Any written, sworn to deposition could be recanted in
court----which the smear campaigns knew full well

So, once again your silly beliefs are mere piles of
shit.

[LGs Garison]

Post by MioMyo
What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway?

What is Cheney hiding?

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/8372/28331

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:03:15 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway?

Perhaps, by having Cheney, Limpballs, Hannity, Coulter,
Gingrich, and O'really the REAL face of the Republican
party, that we'll be overburdened by more seats in the
House, more Senators, and more governors?

[kujebak]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:03:15 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway?

Perhaps, by having Cheney, Limpballs, Hannity, Coulter,
Gingrich, and  O'really the REAL face of the Republican
party, that we'll be overburdened by more seats in the
House, more Senators, and more governors?

I don't know if anyone noticed, but the popularity
of the party in power, and its poster boy, seems to
be slipping fast. This is really why the pinko talkers
are so relentless about this torture BS, desperately
trying to divert attention from the fiscal monkey
business going on in Washington, and the spiraling
economy. Who gives a shit about some raghead
waterboarding. Seriously.

====================================
Behind every liberal is a little fascist, who couldn't
get his way.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by kujebak

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:03:15 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of
anyway?

Perhaps, by having Cheney, Limpballs, Hannity, Coulter,
Gingrich, and O'really the REAL face of the Republican
party, that we'll be overburdened by more seats in the
House, more Senators, and more governors?

I don't know if anyone noticed, but the popularity
of the party in power, and its poster boy, seems to
be slipping fast.

Yeah, it's down to 66% approval.

Post by kujebak
This is really why the pinko talkers

Pinko Alert!!! Pinko Alert!!!

Post by kujebak
are so relentless about this torture BS,

Torture has never been BS, little lady.

Post by kujebak
desperately
trying to divert attention from the fiscal monkey
business going on in Washington,

The fiscal monkey business in Washington ended with the
defeat of the Republicans in 2008.

Post by kujebak
and the spiraling
economy.

The spriraling economy was one of the many reasons why the
Republicans were defeated in 2008. We now have people in
charge who understand economics.

Post by kujebak
Who gives a shit about some raghead
waterboarding. Seriously.

The entire world gives a shit. Seriously.

Post by kujebak
====================================
Behind every liberal is a little fascist, who couldn't
get his way.

Fascism is a right wing political philosophy, sweetie.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:03:15 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
What is the left hiding? What are they afraid of anyway?

Perhaps, by having Cheney, Limpballs, Hannity, Coulter,
Gingrich, and O'really the REAL face of the Republican
party, that we'll be overburdened by more seats in the
House, more Senators, and more governors?

Or perhaps you'll lose more?

Historical precedence says I'm right, tard!

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:29:26 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Or perhaps you'll lose more?
Historical precedence says I'm right, tard!

That's only applicable when the party in power is
perceived as the party that caused the problem

Polling now indicates that the Democrats are gaining
support among new independents (former republicans)
because the perception is that Republicans caused the
mess, the war, the depletion of wealth, and made a mess
of everything

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:29:26 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo
Or perhaps you'll lose more?
Historical precedence says I'm right, tard!

That's only applicable when the party in power is
perceived as the party that caused the problem

Well I know you liberal lemming propagandist are desperate to continue this
strawman llie. Unfortunate for you the only ones believing that tripe is you
fringe leftist hate-mongers......

The rest of America see that bamby is stiil in both Iraq & Afganistan, stll
conducting warrantless wire taps, still have the right to conduct the war
just as Bush did, is spending more money than ever in the combined history
of the US & on & on & on......

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Polling now indicates that the Democrats are gaining
support among new independents (former republicans)

Why because you say so?

ROFLMFAO............

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
because the perception is that Republicans caused the
mess, the war, the depletion of wealth, and made a mess
of everything

Strawman perceptions will be trumped by reality next year. You can bank on
it.....

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:39:40 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
That's only applicable when the party in power is
perceived as the party that caused the problem

Well I know you liberal lemming propagandist are desperate to continue this
strawman llie. Unfortunate for you the only ones believing that tripe is you
fringe leftist hate-mongers......

Again the facts are clear

Bush started with a surplus, total control of all 3
branches of government and 8 years later drove the
nation into bankruptcy

Not a single piece of evidence shows that the party out
of power had anything to do with it.

The party in power (GOP) served up a series of
deregulation, revamped laws, tax cuts, fiscal policies
that allowed the financial institutions to ruin us

The party in Power (GOP) at the same time, used false,
outdated, and unsubstantiated intelligence to set up an
attack on Iraq---presumabley with the Idea in mind that
democracy, (forced or otherwise) would spread in the
region.

Every attempt Bush made to institute fiscal and foriegn
policy was predicated on a series of LIES, false
assumptions, unrealistic expectations, based on
self-serving political ends and GREED

Both domestic and foriegn policy by 2004 were in
shambles.

Now we're starting to know the extent of the LIES--and
the CIA lies are just beginning to be realized.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:39:40 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
That's only applicable when the party in power is
perceived as the party that caused the problem

Well I know you liberal lemming propagandist are desperate to continue this
strawman llie. Unfortunate for you the only ones believing that tripe is you
fringe leftist hate-mongers......

Again the facts are clear
Bush started with a surplus, total control of all 3

There NEVER HAS been a SURPLUS, libtard.....

The government debt has been growing since before Jimmy Peanut Farmer Carter
when it first hit 1-trillion.......

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
branches of government and 8 years later drove the
nation into bankruptcy
Not a single piece of evidence shows that the party out
of power had anything to do with it.
The party in power (GOP) served up a series of
deregulation, revamped laws, tax cuts, fiscal policies
that allowed the financial institutions to ruin us
The party in Power (GOP) at the same time, used false,
outdated, and unsubstantiated intelligence to set up an
attack on Iraq---presumabley with the Idea in mind that
democracy, (forced or otherwise) would spread in the
region.
Every attempt Bush made to institute fiscal and foriegn
policy was predicated on a series of LIES, false
assumptions, unrealistic expectations, based on
self-serving political ends and GREED
Both domestic and foriegn policy by 2004 were in
shambles.
Now we're starting to know the extent of the LIES--and
the CIA lies are just beginning to be realized.

Pitifully, you probably believe every nuance of your above tripe, huh tard?

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:21:41 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Bush started with a surplus, total control of all 3

There NEVER HAS been a SURPLUS, libtard.....

Wow, that's news

The GOP said there was----said it belonged to those who
contributed and then passed tax law to "give it back".
Trouble is that only the top 10% got any back

THe CBO and all other associated Financial institutions
agreed that there was a "$400 billion surplus" at the
end of Clinton's term.

Unless, of course, you're arguing some off-the-wall
rightwing stupidity trying to deflect the horrible
conservative performance over the last 10 years.

[MioMyo]

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:21:41 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Bush started with a surplus, total control of all 3

There NEVER HAS been a SURPLUS, libtard.....

Wow, that's news
The GOP said there was----said it belonged to those who
contributed and then passed tax law to "give it back".
Trouble is that only the top 10% got any back
THe CBO and all other associated Financial institutions
agreed that there was a "$400 billion surplus" at the
end of Clinton's term.
Unless, of course, you're arguing some off-the-wall
rightwing stupidity trying to deflect the horrible
conservative performance over the last 10 years.

You obviously don't know the difference between the national debt and the
annual deficit.

Go get educated then come back and I'll kick your silly ass around some
more....

[P***@SillyWalk.com]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:57 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:21:41 -0700, "MioMyo"

Post by MioMyo

Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Bush started with a surplus, total control of all 3

There NEVER HAS been a SURPLUS, libtard.....

Wow, that's news
The GOP said there was----said it belonged to those who
contributed and then passed tax law to "give it back".
Trouble is that only the top 10% got any back
THe CBO and all other associated Financial institutions
agreed that there was a "$400 billion surplus" at the
end of Clinton's term.
Unless, of course, you're arguing some off-the-wall
rightwing stupidity trying to deflect the horrible
conservative performance over the last 10 years.

You obviously don't know the difference between the national debt and the
annual deficit.

You obviously have deliberately ingored the accepted
view of the status of the surplus that's not been
argued as false by the entire economic community.