Discussion:
Obama continues walking the persecution road for the Bush Administration
(too old to reply)
MioMyo
2009-05-15 15:47:26 UTC
Permalink
I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he has on
so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning the Bush
administration in death camps.

Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation pictures. He's
also floundering on what to do with the GITMO detainees and has done a
complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their hopes
and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually endorses and
implements Bush's policies......

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

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story

Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a criminal
investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under President George W.
Bush, two sources say.

Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine whether
former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed
justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006.


Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.

Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing subpoenas
for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington. But in recent
weeks, she has interviewed other government aides, including former White
House political deputies Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor.

Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete Domenici
(R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to determine
whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed improperly.


The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by the
Justice Department's inspector general and the department's Office of
Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered improper
political motivations in the dismissal of several of the nine fired federal
prosecutors.

But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from White
House advisors and lawmakers.

Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
statements that officials made to the inspector general and to Congress
about the episode.

Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen. Alberto
R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul
McNulty.

The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest from the
House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides Harriet E. Miers and
Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and documents.

Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony to House
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other members of
the panel next month.
Larry Hewitt
2009-05-15 17:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he has
on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning the Bush
administration in death camps.
Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation pictures.
He's also floundering on what to do with the GITMO detainees and has
done a complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their
hopes and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually
endorses and implements Bush's policies......
ROFLMFAO................
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a criminal
investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under President George
W. Bush, two sources say.
Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine whether
former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed
justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006.
Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.
Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing
subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington. But
in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides, including
former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor.
Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete
Domenici (R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to
determine whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed
improperly.
The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by the
Justice Department's inspector general and the department's Office of
Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered improper
political motivations in the dismissal of several of the nine fired
federal prosecutors.
But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from White
House advisors and lawmakers.
Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
statements that officials made to the inspector general and to Congress
about the episode.
Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen.
Alberto R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy
Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty.
The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest from
the House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides Harriet E.
Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and documents.
Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony to
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other
members of the panel next month.
Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?


Thought so.

Larry
MioMyo
2009-05-15 18:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he has
on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning the Bush
administration in death camps.
Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation pictures.
He's also floundering on what to do with the GITMO detainees and has done
a complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their hopes
and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually endorses
and implements Bush's policies......
ROFLMFAO................
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a criminal
investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under President George W.
Bush, two sources say.
Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine whether
former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed
justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006.
Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.
Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing
subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington. But
in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides, including
former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor.
Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete
Domenici (R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to
determine whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed
improperly.
The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by the
Justice Department's inspector general and the department's Office of
Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered improper
political motivations in the dismissal of several of the nine fired
federal prosecutors.
But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from White
House advisors and lawmakers.
Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
statements that officials made to the inspector general and to Congress
about the episode.
Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen.
Alberto R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy
Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty.
The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest from
the House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides Harriet E.
Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and documents.
Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony to
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other
members of the panel next month.
Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
Has Rove been convicted, libtard?

Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain without due
process.
Post by Larry Hewitt
Thought so.
No you never think, or you're incapable of doing so.
Post by Larry Hewitt
Larry
Bill Z.
2009-05-15 19:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he
has on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning
the Bush administration in death camps.
<snip>
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a
criminal investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under
President George W. Bush, two sources say.
Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by
Connecticut prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to
examine whether former Justice Department and White House officials
lied or obstructed justice in connection with the dismissal of
federal prosecutors in 2006.
<snip>
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
Has Rove been convicted, libtard?
Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain
without due process.
Rove is going to be investigated whether MioMyo likes it or not.
MioMyo does in seem to believe that criminal activity on the part of
his "friends" not be prosecuted, an investigation being the first
step towards a prosecution. Rove will get due process, and that
includes prosecuting him if the investigation turns up sufficient
evidence.

MioMyo also seems to have a poor grasp of causality - September (2008)
was before our current president was elected.
MioMyo
2009-05-16 03:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he
has on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning
the Bush administration in death camps.
<snip>
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a
criminal investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under
President George W. Bush, two sources say.
Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by
Connecticut prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to
examine whether former Justice Department and White House officials
lied or obstructed justice in connection with the dismissal of
federal prosecutors in 2006.
<snip>
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
Has Rove been convicted, libtard?
Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain
without due process.
Rove is going to be investigated whether MioMyo likes it or not.
MioMyo does in seem to believe that criminal activity on the part of
his "friends" not be prosecuted, an investigation being the first
step towards a prosecution. Rove will get due process, and that
includes prosecuting him if the investigation turns up sufficient
evidence.
MioMyo also seems to have a poor grasp of causality - September (2008)
was before our current president was elected.
You tards don't get it.

What I would like is for the left to forgo all pretense of a trial (much
less anything fair or nonpartisan) and by Supreme Proclamation declare the
entire Bush Administration war criminals, including anyone who supported
them, and pass a sentence judgment of death by hanging. At least in doing
so, they would be honest regarding their desires in having dictorial,
Oligarchy rule.
Bill Z.
2009-05-16 20:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain
without due process.
Rove is going to be investigated whether MioMyo likes it or not.
MioMyo does in seem to believe that criminal activity on the part of
his "friends" not be prosecuted, an investigation being the first
step towards a prosecution. Rove will get due process, and that
includes prosecuting him if the investigation turns up sufficient
evidence.
MioMyo also seems to have a poor grasp of causality - September (2008)
was before our current president was elected.
You tards don't get it.
Given your problem with causality, it is obvious that *you* do not
get it.
Post by MioMyo
What I would like is for the left to forgo all pretense of a trial
(much less anything fair or nonpartisan) and by Supreme Proclamation
declare the entire Bush Administration war criminals, including anyone
who supported them, and pass a sentence judgment of death by
hanging. At least in doing so, they would be honest regarding their
desires in having dictorial, Oligarchy rule.
In other words, MioMyo is the real fascist. :-)
MioMyo
2009-05-16 22:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain
without due process.
Rove is going to be investigated whether MioMyo likes it or not.
MioMyo does in seem to believe that criminal activity on the part of
his "friends" not be prosecuted, an investigation being the first
step towards a prosecution. Rove will get due process, and that
includes prosecuting him if the investigation turns up sufficient
evidence.
MioMyo also seems to have a poor grasp of causality - September (2008)
was before our current president was elected.
You tards don't get it.
Given your problem with causality, it is obvious that *you* do not
get it.
No I do get it alright and thatt's why you are whining....
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
What I would like is for the left to forgo all pretense of a trial
(much less anything fair or nonpartisan) and by Supreme Proclamation
declare the entire Bush Administration war criminals, including anyone
who supported them, and pass a sentence judgment of death by
hanging. At least in doing so, they would be honest regarding their
desires in having dictorial, Oligarchy rule.
In other words, MioMyo is the real fascist. :-)
I notice you run away from the meat & substance of the discussion, libtard
which PROVES THAT I NAILED you through the Heart.

Either Shit or Get off the Pot Tard.....

You know all you assholes do is cry and whine because actually having a
trial would put your claims to rest or prove you right.

Now that you have both the Executive branch and Congress (also effectively
the judiciary) GO FOR IT.....

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.....

By doing neither, YOU PROVE yourself the Fascist, LIBTARD.....
Bill Z.
2009-05-16 23:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain
without due process.
Rove is going to be investigated whether MioMyo likes it or not.
MioMyo does in seem to believe that criminal activity on the part of
his "friends" not be prosecuted, an investigation being the first
step towards a prosecution. Rove will get due process, and that
includes prosecuting him if the investigation turns up sufficient
evidence.
MioMyo also seems to have a poor grasp of causality - September (2008)
was before our current president was elected.
You tards don't get it.
Given your problem with causality, it is obvious that *you* do not
get it.
No I do get it alright and thatt's why you are whining....
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
What I would like is for the left to forgo all pretense of a trial
(much less anything fair or nonpartisan) and by Supreme Proclamation
declare the entire Bush Administration war criminals, including anyone
who supported them, and pass a sentence judgment of death by
hanging. At least in doing so, they would be honest regarding their
desires in having dictorial, Oligarchy rule.
In other words, MioMyo is the real fascist. :-)
I notice you run away from the meat & substance of the discussion,
libtard which PROVES THAT I NAILED you through the Heart.
Either Shit or Get off the Pot Tard.....
Liar. There was no "meat & substance of the discussion" to run away
from. All there was was a mindless rant from you.
Post by MioMyo
You know all you assholes do is cry and whine because actually having
a trial would put your claims to rest or prove you right.
Now that you have both the Executive branch and Congress (also
effectively the judiciary) GO FOR IT.....
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.....
By doing neither, YOU PROVE yourself the Fascist, LIBTARD.....
Bald-faced liar. I merely stated the facts. You can find them in
main-stream news sources. And I don't have both the executive branch
and congress. In Rove's case, it merely seems that (a) there is an
investigation with Rove involved in some way, and (b) there is a
possibility of charges being filed *if* the investigation turns up
sufficient evidence.

The implication that criminal charges are contingent on finding
enough evidence to get it past a grand jury is not "fascist",
lies from vermin like MioMyo notwithstanding.
MioMyo
2009-05-17 01:59:55 UTC
Permalink
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars. Obviously you do so
purely because you can't deal with opposing political viewpoints. But I do
pity you for your low self-esteem which manifests into narcissistic
arrogance.

However, either you haven't paid attention or you think your leftist opinion
is the only one worthy of listening to. Still the fact remain, many vengeful
& hate filled libtards (much like you) don't give a damn about the
inconvenience of a grand jury trial or any of those other constitutional
nuisances. One only need read these newsgroups the daily kos, move on and
many more radical leftist sites to know they only wish Bush, any of his
administration and anyone who dares defend them to be summarily executed.

It's your fault that you prefer leaving your head deep up inside your ass
and have noticed so much.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain
without due process.
Rove is going to be investigated whether MioMyo likes it or not.
MioMyo does in seem to believe that criminal activity on the part of
his "friends" not be prosecuted, an investigation being the first
step towards a prosecution. Rove will get due process, and that
includes prosecuting him if the investigation turns up sufficient
evidence.
MioMyo also seems to have a poor grasp of causality - September (2008)
was before our current president was elected.
You tards don't get it.
Given your problem with causality, it is obvious that *you* do not
get it.
No I do get it alright and thatt's why you are whining....
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
What I would like is for the left to forgo all pretense of a trial
(much less anything fair or nonpartisan) and by Supreme Proclamation
declare the entire Bush Administration war criminals, including anyone
who supported them, and pass a sentence judgment of death by
hanging. At least in doing so, they would be honest regarding their
desires in having dictorial, Oligarchy rule.
In other words, MioMyo is the real fascist. :-)
I notice you run away from the meat & substance of the discussion,
libtard which PROVES THAT I NAILED you through the Heart.
Either Shit or Get off the Pot Tard.....
Liar. There was no "meat & substance of the discussion" to run away
from. All there was was a mindless rant from you.
Post by MioMyo
You know all you assholes do is cry and whine because actually having
a trial would put your claims to rest or prove you right.
Now that you have both the Executive branch and Congress (also
effectively the judiciary) GO FOR IT.....
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.....
By doing neither, YOU PROVE yourself the Fascist, LIBTARD.....
Bald-faced liar. I merely stated the facts. You can find them in
main-stream news sources. And I don't have both the executive branch
and congress. In Rove's case, it merely seems that (a) there is an
investigation with Rove involved in some way, and (b) there is a
possibility of charges being filed *if* the investigation turns up
sufficient evidence.
The implication that criminal charges are contingent on finding
enough evidence to get it past a grand jury is not "fascist",
lies from vermin like MioMyo notwithstanding.
Bill Z.
2009-05-17 03:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars.
It's not my fault that you are a liar. You posted a mindless
personal attack filled with lies when I merely reported what
is public knowledge (available in mainstream news articles),
with a very short discussion of due process.

Whether you like it or not, Rove is being investigated (not
exclusively as it is the lot of them) and whether charges are filed
will depend on what the investigation uncovers.

<rest of rant ignored>
Don Gabacho
2009-05-17 03:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars.
It's not my fault that you are a liar. You posted a mindless
personal attack filled with lies when I merely reported what
is public knowledge (available in mainstream news articles),
with a very short discussion of due process.
Whether you like it or not, Rove is being investigated (not
exclusively as it is the lot of them) and whether charges are filed
will depend on what the investigation uncovers.
<rest of rant ignored>
Sleazy Rove should really keep his mouth shut.

Pelosi is doing just fine doing herself in.
MioMyo
2009-05-17 13:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars.
It's not my fault that you are a liar.
Yet you haven't figured out calling someone a liar is not the same as
proving your name-calling......
Post by Bill Z.
You posted a mindless
personal attack filled with lies when I merely reported what
is public knowledge (available in mainstream news articles),
with a very short discussion of due process.
It's not my fault you're not up to the task of engaging in a reasoned,
cogent debate. You just can't handle losing an adualt argument, so you
revert to these school yard tactics thereby avoiding any sunstantive
discussion.
Post by Bill Z.
Whether you like it or not, Rove is being investigated (not
Try reading up-thread tard. I've said before GO FOR IT. But investigation is
not the AIM for the radical wing of the left. It's summarily executing and
silencing those who both challenge them and deny them from thier presumed,
self-anointed, birth-right lofty throne of power & control.
Post by Bill Z.
exclusively as it is the lot of them) and whether charges are filed
will depend on what the investigation uncovers.
I suppose you would assume a lead investigator, like the Imperial Princess
Pelosi (she would be it on the floor of the house), would be an Objective,
Non-Partisan Great Interrogator..... Right Bitch?
Bill Z.
2009-05-18 19:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars.
It's not my fault that you are a liar.
Yet you haven't figured out calling someone a liar is not the same as
proving your name-calling......
The fact is that you are a liar.
Post by MioMyo
It's not my fault you're not up to the task of engaging in a reasoned,
cogent debate.
ROTFLMAO. You are incapable of a "reasoned, cogent debate" of any sort.n
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Whether you like it or not, Rove is being investigated (not
Try reading up-thread tard. I've said before GO FOR IT. But
investigation is not the AIM for the radical wing of the left. It's
summarily executing and silencing those who both challenge them and
deny them from thier presumed, self-anointed, birth-right lofty throne
of power & control.
Idiot.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
exclusively as it is the lot of them) and whether charges are filed
will depend on what the investigation uncovers.
I suppose you would assume a lead investigator, like the Imperial
Princess Pelosi (she would be it on the floor of the house), would be
an Objective, Non-Partisan Great Interrogator..... Right Bitch?
Idiot.
MioMyo
2009-05-19 02:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars.
It's not my fault that you are a liar.
Yet you haven't figured out calling someone a liar is not the same as
proving your name-calling......
The fact is that you are a liar.
Actually this is the typical liberal MO when called to task to prove their
slander. Like the princess pelosi, you think you can just call your
challengers liars and that would be the end of it. Wrong, you can either
prove your allegation or you can't.

This is what liberals do when they can't debate an issue, they merely call
their opponents some nasty name think thye made a winning argument. But what
Pelosi and this moron here is, propagandist who can't back up their
allegations, so instead they blame their oppoenents for the mere act of
challeneging them.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
It's not my fault you're not up to the task of engaging in a reasoned,
cogent debate.
ROTFLMAO. You are incapable of a "reasoned, cogent debate" of any sort.n
Right, but it you willy who runs from the issue and thinks calling your
detractors a liar makes a winning argument.....

Clue, it makes you the fool.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Whether you like it or not, Rove is being investigated (not
Try reading up-thread tard. I've said before GO FOR IT. But
investigation is not the AIM for the radical wing of the left. It's
summarily executing and silencing those who both challenge them and
deny them from thier presumed, self-anointed, birth-right lofty throne
of power & control.
Idiot.
Can't handle the challenge... Figures......
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
exclusively as it is the lot of them) and whether charges are filed
will depend on what the investigation uncovers.
I suppose you would assume a lead investigator, like the Imperial
Princess Pelosi (she would be it on the floor of the house), would be
an Objective, Non-Partisan Great Interrogator..... Right Bitch?
Idiot.
Can't handle the challenge... Figures......
Bill Z.
2009-05-19 15:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
The fact is that you are a liar.
Actually this is the typical liberal MO when called to task to prove
their slander. Like the princess pelosi, you think you can just call
your challengers liars and that would be the end of it. Wrong, you can
either prove your allegation or you can't.
As I said, the fact is that you are a liar, and I documented it any
number of times.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Idiot.
Can't handle the challenge... Figures......
Idiot - you are simply not worth the time of day.
MioMyo
2009-05-20 01:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
The fact is that you are a liar.
Actually this is the typical liberal MO when called to task to prove
their slander. Like the princess pelosi, you think you can just call
your challengers liars and that would be the end of it. Wrong, you can
either prove your allegation or you can't.
As I said, the fact is that you are a liar, and I documented it any
number of times.
Next, I'll need to teach you the art of documentation along with the
difference between Opinion & Fact.

All you've done is stated an opinion since, like above, you make an
unsupported statement without corroborating evidence or proof whatsoever....
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Idiot.
Can't handle the challenge... Figures......
Idiot - you are simply not worth the time of day.
Your unconditional capitulation is so noted.....
Bill Z.
2009-05-20 02:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
The fact is that you are a liar.
Actually this is the typical liberal MO when called to task to prove
their slander. Like the princess pelosi, you think you can just call
your challengers liars and that would be the end of it. Wrong, you can
either prove your allegation or you can't.
As I said, the fact is that you are a liar, and I documented it any
number of times.
You are not capable of documenting anything, from what I can tell.
Post by MioMyo
Next, I'll need to teach you the art of documentation along with the
difference between Opinion & Fact.
Something you could not possibly understand.
Post by MioMyo
All you've done is stated an opinion since, like above, you make an
unsupported statement without corroborating evidence or proof
whatsoever....
Your unconditional capitulation is so noted.....
Complete and utter idiot + bald-faced liar.
MioMyo
2009-05-20 02:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
The fact is that you are a liar.
Actually this is the typical liberal MO when called to task to prove
their slander. Like the princess pelosi, you think you can just call
your challengers liars and that would be the end of it. Wrong, you can
either prove your allegation or you can't.
As I said, the fact is that you are a liar, and I documented it any
number of times.
You are not capable of documenting anything, from what I can tell.
More unsupported claims... Hmmm, you got quite the track record there tard
for being unable to prove your claims......
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Next, I'll need to teach you the art of documentation along with the
difference between Opinion & Fact.
Something you could not possibly understand.
Cogent debate, the difference between fact & opinion along with deductive
reasoning are concepts, so far, you've shown yourself to be completely
clueless as to their meaning & application. I knew so much when you
attempted to promote man-made global warming without prebting any facts
whatsoever regarding mans CO2 contribution.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
All you've done is stated an opinion since, like above, you make an
unsupported statement without corroborating evidence or proof
whatsoever....
Your unconditional capitulation is so noted.....
Complete and utter idiot + bald-faced liar
Why, just because you say so tard? So far, that is your only irrational
excuse for such a bold unsupported assertion...

ROFLMFAO............
Bill Z.
2009-05-20 02:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Next, I'll need to teach you the art of documentation along with the
difference between Opinion & Fact.
Something you could not possibly understand.
Cogent debate, the difference between fact & opinion along with
deductive reasoning are concepts, so far, you've shown yourself to be
completely clueless as to their meaning & application. I knew so much
when you attempted to promote man-made global warming without prebting
any facts whatsoever regarding mans CO2 contribution.
Don't use words you don't understand, and quit lying: I gave you the
basic facts about global warming - a description of blackbody radiation
and how matter interacts with it.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Your unconditional capitulation is so noted.....
Complete and utter idiot + bald-faced liar
Why, just because you say so tard? So far, that is your only
irrational excuse for such a bold unsupported assertion...
ROFLMFAO............
MioMyo is a complete and utter idiot.
MioMyo
2009-05-20 03:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Next, I'll need to teach you the art of documentation along with the
difference between Opinion & Fact.
Something you could not possibly understand.
Cogent debate, the difference between fact & opinion along with
deductive reasoning are concepts, so far, you've shown yourself to be
completely clueless as to their meaning & application. I knew so much
when you attempted to promote man-made global warming without prebting
any facts whatsoever regarding mans CO2 contribution.
Don't use words you don't understand, and quit lying: I gave you the
basic facts about global warming - a description of blackbody radiation
and how matter interacts with it.
The argument is MAN-MADE GW. You merely cut_n_paste information regarding
chemical process of CO2 in the atmosphere. I challenged you over & over to
show man's contribution and how it is responsible for GW.

You didn't even attempt to produce such data.

So your above strawman exposes what a bloviating bafoon you really are,
billy-boy......
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Your unconditional capitulation is so noted.....
Complete and utter idiot + bald-faced liar
Why, just because you say so tard? So far, that is your only
irrational excuse for such a bold unsupported assertion...
ROFLMFAO............
MioMyo is a complete and utter idiot.
Another of your opinions so noted......
Bill Z.
2009-05-20 03:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Next, I'll need to teach you the art of documentation along with the
difference between Opinion & Fact.
Something you could not possibly understand.
Cogent debate, the difference between fact & opinion along with
deductive reasoning are concepts, so far, you've shown yourself to be
completely clueless as to their meaning & application. I knew so much
when you attempted to promote man-made global warming without prebting
any facts whatsoever regarding mans CO2 contribution.
Don't use words you don't understand, and quit lying: I gave you the
basic facts about global warming - a description of blackbody radiation
and how matter interacts with it.
The argument is MAN-MADE GW. You merely cut_n_paste information
regarding chemical process of CO2 in the atmosphere. I challenged you
over & over to show man's contribution and how it is responsible for
GW.
Liar - I merely gave you an abreviated physics lecture, describing
blackbody radiation and the properties of various gasses such as
CO2. I also gave you citations giving the numbers. You ignored it
all because the technical details are beyond you.
Post by MioMyo
You didn't even attempt to produce such data.
Liar.
Post by MioMyo
So your above strawman exposes what a bloviating bafoon you really
are, billy-boy......
Liar.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Your unconditional capitulation is so noted.....
Complete and utter idiot + bald-faced liar
Why, just because you say so tard? So far, that is your only
irrational excuse for such a bold unsupported assertion...
ROFLMFAO............
MioMyo is a complete and utter idiot.
Another of your opinions so noted......
MioMyo is a complete and utter idiot.
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-17 13:07:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:59:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars. Obviously you do so
purely because you can't deal with opposing political viewpoints
Are "slam dunk" WMD merely an Opposing viewpoint?
MioMyo
2009-05-17 14:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:59:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars. Obviously you do so
purely because you can't deal with opposing political viewpoints
Are "slam dunk" WMD merely an Opposing viewpoint?
Saddam had no WMD in your world, eh libtard?
MioMyo
2009-05-19 02:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:59:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars. Obviously you do so
purely because you can't deal with opposing political viewpoints
Are "slam dunk" WMD merely an Opposing viewpoint?
Saddam had no WMD in your world, eh libtard?
Why weren't they found then, rightard?
The better questions are: where did they go? why weren't they accounted for?

Are you suggesting they disappeared into thin air?
While we're at it: what's the connection between Iraq or Saddam
Hussein with 9 /11?
I'll let you answer that by explaining what sanctions were violated on a
daily basis by Iraq pre 911?
MioMyo
2009-05-20 01:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:59:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars. Obviously you
do
so
purely because you can't deal with opposing political viewpoints
Are "slam dunk" WMD merely an Opposing viewpoint?
Saddam had no WMD in your world, eh libtard?
Why weren't they found then, rightard?
The better questions are: where did they go? why weren't they accounted for?
Are you suggesting they disappeared into thin air?
Then if they weren't there anymore, why did the USA invade Iraq?
First, you're assuming the only purpose for invading Iraq was to destroy
Saddam's WMDs.......

Notably though, you can't answer the question.
Post by MioMyo
While we're at it: what's the connection between Iraq or Saddam
Hussein with 9 /11?
I'll let you answer that by explaining what sanctions were violated on a
daily basis by Iraq pre 911?-
Wanna list of the treaties, alliances and international laws broken by
the USA on a daily basis?
Is this supposed to be your moral equivalence argument?
MioMyo
2009-05-22 12:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:59:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars. Obviously you
do
so
purely because you can't deal with opposing political viewpoints
Are "slam dunk" WMD merely an Opposing viewpoint?
Saddam had no WMD in your world, eh libtard?
Why weren't they found then, rightard?
The better questions are: where did they go? why weren't they
accounted
for?
Are you suggesting they disappeared into thin air?
Then if they weren't there anymore, why did the USA invade Iraq?
First, you're assuming the only purpose for invading Iraq was to destroy
Saddam's WMDs.......
For which reason(s) then? If it weren't for the WMD who weren't there
anymore -in compliance with the sanctions btw- why did the US invade
Iraq?
Can you read?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Resolution
And before you answer "Saddam Hussein was a bad man", think of all the
dictatorships your country has supported and helped and continue to
support...
Post by MioMyo
Notably though, you can't answer the question.
Post by MioMyo
While we're at it: what's the connection between Iraq or Saddam
Hussein with 9 /11?
I'll let you answer that by explaining what sanctions were violated
on
a
daily basis by Iraq pre 911?-
Wanna list of the treaties, alliances and international laws broken by
the USA on a daily basis?
Is this supposed to be your moral equivalence argument?-
Nope, just my say of saying that treaties, alliances and laws are for
everyone. Yes, even the USA.
Would that include Saddam's Iraq, when he ground up political foe in a
meat
grinder, gassed his own people and continued thwarting the UN Resolutions
from Gulf one?-
<Why Iraq then, and not Saudi Arabia, especially considering that most
<of the terrorists who caused 9/11 come from there?

You are so stupid you don't see the difference between a state waging WMD
and war like Saddam's Iraq and criminals doing so on their onw accord!

<BTW, this "gassing his own people"-thing... Could it have to do with
<this: Loading Image... ?

No.......

<Or was Saddam such a nice fellow then?

Before he turned dual use materials into gassing WMD, he was at best the
lesser of two evils between the Iranians and a fanatic. Seems that
geo-politics is wee bit above your intellectual capability. However, he was
not the first thug to be embraced by democracies. Just look at what the left
is currently doing with Hugo Chavez and also Fidel Castro. Your ilk are
acting like they are benevolent dictators and never executed any political
foe much less the thousands we know about!
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-22 15:16:53 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2009 05:45:56 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You are so stupid you don't see the difference between a state waging WMD
and war like Saddam's Iraq and criminals doing so on their onw accord!
Iraq used WMD on their OWN people---negating any claim
they were threatening other nations.
MioMyo
2009-05-23 12:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 22 May 2009 05:45:56 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You are so stupid you don't see the difference between a state waging WMD
and war like Saddam's Iraq and criminals doing so on their onw accord!
Iraq used WMD on their OWN people---negating any claim
they were threatening other nations.
So your supposed profound logic is the mere fact that Saddam gassed his own
people means proof-positive that he is NOT a threat otherwise?

You poor ignoramus imbecile.....

ROFLMFAO.................
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-23 13:20:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2009 05:35:59 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 22 May 2009 05:45:56 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You are so stupid you don't see the difference between a state waging WMD
and war like Saddam's Iraq and criminals doing so on their onw accord!
Iraq used WMD on their OWN people---negating any claim
they were threatening other nations.
So your supposed profound logic is the mere fact that Saddam gassed his own
people means proof-positive that he is NOT a threat otherwise?
One has to have an agenda to puff up his ability, or
wish to do that in order to make that claim true

No such evidence exists.

Bush/Cheney concocted a false set of evidence to push
that perception
MioMyo
2009-05-23 19:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 05:35:59 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 22 May 2009 05:45:56 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You are so stupid you don't see the difference between a state waging WMD
and war like Saddam's Iraq and criminals doing so on their onw accord!
Iraq used WMD on their OWN people---negating any claim
they were threatening other nations.
So your supposed profound logic is the mere fact that Saddam gassed his own
people means proof-positive that he is NOT a threat otherwise?
One has to have an agenda to puff up his ability, or
wish to do that in order to make that claim true
No such evidence exists.
You dumb ass, how about that 8-year war with Iran when he gassed them too. I
guess that is your proof he was no threat to other nations.
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Bush/Cheney concocted a false set of evidence to push
that perception
Prove it, don't just say it tard.....
MioMyo
2009-05-23 23:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 05:35:59 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Fri, 22 May 2009 05:45:56 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You are so stupid you don't see the difference between a state waging WMD
and war like Saddam's Iraq and criminals doing so on their onw accord!
Iraq used WMD on their OWN people---negating any claim
they were threatening other nations.
So your supposed profound logic is the mere fact that Saddam gassed his own
people means proof-positive that he is NOT a threat otherwise?
One has to have an agenda to puff up his ability, or
wish to do that in order to make that claim true
No such evidence exists.
You dumb ass, how about that 8-year war with Iran when he gassed them too. I
guess that is your proof he was no threat to other nations.
<>Iran is NEXT DOOR to Iraq, you stupid ASSWIPE, and the US *was backing
<>Saddam* in that conflict. Man, you're stupid.

IOW you the pompous assholes statement that Iraq posed no threats to other
nations, did not apply to otehr nations in the area like Iran..... Hmm, any
other nations you want to include in that caveat, libtard- since you're
speaking on pompous's behalf.....

<>So how does his invasion of Iran make him a threat to us over here in
<>the Western Hemisphere?

Look at the pompous comment, he didn't specify western nations. So is that
the new condition for his comments? or maybe (and not surprising so) you and
pompous are one in the same!
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Bush/Cheney concocted a false set of evidence to push
that perception
Prove it, don't just say it tard.....
<>Yellow cake.

That's not proof Bush/Cheney lied.......
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-23 23:27:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:48:05 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
One has to have an agenda to puff up his ability, or
wish to do that in order to make that claim true
No such evidence exists.
You dumb ass, how about that 8-year war with Iran when he gassed them too.
He gassed Kurds
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Bush/Cheney concocted a false set of evidence to push
that perception
Prove it, don't just say it tard.....
I have, repeatedly

Not once have you ever (nor can you) rebut the 5 main
reasons given to congress (all false) that by Feb 2003
were PROVEN to be false---yet no revision of policy
ensued.

You dingbat

You should know them by heart, but you don't

You don't because you know they were ALL false
MioMyo
2009-05-24 14:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:48:05 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
One has to have an agenda to puff up his ability, or
wish to do that in order to make that claim true
No such evidence exists.
You dumb ass, how about that 8-year war with Iran when he gassed them too.
He gassed Kurds
He also gassed Iranians during the 8-year war between the two nations,
tard.....
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Bush/Cheney concocted a false set of evidence to push
that perception
Prove it, don't just say it tard.....
I have, repeatedly
Not once have you......
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
Not once have you ever (nor can you) rebut the 5 main
reasons given to congress (all false) that by Feb 2003
were PROVEN to be false---yet no revision of policy
ensued.
Incomplete and inaccurate intelligence is NOT the same as lying. Plus, you
always avoid the inconvenient truth that many other intelligent agencies
around the world concluded the same as the CIA. Why is that tard?
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
You dingbat
You partisan demagogue kunt.....
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
You should know them by heart, but you don't
I'm sure you count your vitriolic hatred in your sleep. Please continue
because it is you which your hatred destroys.....
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
You don't because you know they were ALL false
I know you're a partisan lemming.... aka useful idiot......
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-24 22:42:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:57:04 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
He gassed Kurds
He also gassed Iranians during the 8-year war between the two nations,
tard.....
how is gassing Kurd and Iranians our business?
MioMyo
2009-05-25 01:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:57:04 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
He gassed Kurds
He also gassed Iranians during the 8-year war between the two nations,
tard.....
how is gassing Kurd and Iranians our business?
It eviscerates the other libtard's point (or maybe that was your alter-ego).
Whichever, when you catch up, you'll know how badly I just kicked your
ass.....
MioMyo
2009-05-24 15:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:59:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
You're awfully quick in calling your opponents liars.
Obviously
you
do
so
purely because you can't deal with opposing political viewpoints
Are "slam dunk" WMD merely an Opposing viewpoint?
Saddam had no WMD in your world, eh libtard?
Why weren't they found then, rightard?
The better questions are: where did they go? why weren't they
accounted
for?
Are you suggesting they disappeared into thin air?
Then if they weren't there anymore, why did the USA invade Iraq?
First, you're assuming the only purpose for invading Iraq was to destroy
Saddam's WMDs.......
For which reason(s) then? If it weren't for the WMD who weren't there
anymore -in compliance with the sanctions btw- why did the US invade
Iraq?
Can you read?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Resolution
And before you answer "Saddam Hussein was a bad man", think of all the
dictatorships your country has supported and helped and continue to
support...
Post by MioMyo
Notably though, you can't answer the question.
Post by MioMyo
While we're at it: what's the connection between Iraq or Saddam
Hussein with 9 /11?
I'll let you answer that by explaining what sanctions were violated
on
a
daily basis by Iraq pre 911?-
Wanna list of the treaties, alliances and international laws broken by
the USA on a daily basis?
Is this supposed to be your moral equivalence argument?-
Nope, just my say of saying that treaties, alliances and laws are for
everyone. Yes, even the USA.
Would that include Saddam's Iraq, when he ground up political foe in a
meat
grinder, gassed his own people and continued thwarting the UN Resolutions
from Gulf one?-
<Why Iraq then, and not Saudi Arabia, especially considering that most
<of the terrorists who caused 9/11 come from there?
You are so stupid
<>More name-calling from the hypocrite rightard cunt.

And you are above that.....

ROFLMFAO at another libtard hypocrite...........

you don't see the difference between a state waging WMD
Post by MioMyo
and war like Saddam's Iraq and criminals doing so on their onw accord!
<>Why wasn't Saudi Arabia attacked?

Probably because they never attacked the United States, probably because
they have no WMD programs nor threaten to attack other nations.

Shall I go on embarrassing your intellectual inferiority?

<>After Pearl Harbour, your hero Bush would have invaded New Zealand.

Sure tard, keep telling yourself that.......
Post by MioMyo
<BTW, this "gassing his own people"-thing... Could it have to do with
<this:http://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg?
No.......
<>Lying again...

Yes you are.......
Post by MioMyo
<Or was Saddam such a nice fellow then?
Before he turned dual use materials into gassing WMD, he was at best the
lesser of two evils between the Iranians and a fanatic. Seems that
geo-politics is wee bit above your intellectual capability.
<>More name-calling from the hypocrite rigthard cunt.

Address the point hypocrite.......

However, he was
Post by MioMyo
not the first thug to be embraced by democracies. Just look at what the left
is currently doing with Hugo Chavez and also Fidel Castro.
<>WHo is supporting any of these?

You should inform yourself before making a complete and utter fool of
yourself, tard.

<>Castro is a has been and Chavez is a clown.
<>To say that "the left" (btw, there is no left in the USA) support them
<>is as stupid as to say that right-wingers worship Hitler.

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

Your ilk are
Post by MioMyo
acting like they are benevolent dictators and never executed any political
foe much less the thousands we know about!-
<>Chavez was democratically elected, you stupid cunt.all

So were many other butchers, even Saddam Hussein....
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-24 22:42:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:08:11 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
ROFLMFAO at another libtard hypocrite...........
Seems you're one of the FEW who still believe the
reasons given Congress for the "vote to authorize" are
still true.

SNICKER
MioMyo
2009-05-25 01:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:08:11 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
ROFLMFAO at another libtard hypocrite...........
Seems you're one of the FEW who still believe the
reasons given Congress for the "vote to authorize" are
still true.
SNICKER
Seems as though you're still one of the myriads of libtards who thinks they
can say whatever he wants without having to prove it ....

Joe King Eu
2009-05-17 04:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he
has on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning
the Bush administration in death camps.
<snip>
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3
099864.story
Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a
criminal investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under
President George W. Bush, two sources say.
Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by
Connecticut prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to
examine whether former Justice Department and White House officials
lied or obstructed justice in connection with the dismissal of
federal prosecutors in 2006.
<snip>
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
Has Rove been convicted, libtard?
Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain
without due process.
Rove is going to be investigated whether MioMyo likes it or not.
MioMyo does in seem to believe that criminal activity on the part of
his "friends" not be prosecuted, an investigation being the first
step towards a prosecution. Rove will get due process, and that
includes prosecuting him if the investigation turns up sufficient
evidence.
MioMyo also seems to have a poor grasp of causality - September (2008)
was before our current president was elected.
You tards don't get it.
What I would like is for the left to forgo all pretense of a trial (much
less anything fair or nonpartisan) and by Supreme Proclamation declare the
entire Bush Administration war criminals, including anyone who supported
them, and pass a sentence judgment of death by hanging. At least in doing
so, they would be honest regarding their desires in having dictorial,
Oligarchy rule.
You Craps don't get it. Why do you suppose we didn't have any action after
WWII where a crap president nuked Japan and placed American citizens in
concentration camps? Or when another crap president lied about North
Vietnamese naval vessel attacks on US ships? (A crap lied and 58,000 died)
Now you have a crap president attempting to institute a fascist regime with
his demand for control of private enterprise. Most of the crap leadership
are tax evaders and have the audacity to want to raise the working man's
taxes. You had a crap president who deballed the intell community and now
you have another crap president doing exactly the same.
Bill Z.
2009-05-17 06:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe King Eu
You Craps don't get it.
You'd look like less of an idiot if you dropped the silly name calling.
Post by Joe King Eu
Why do you suppose we didn't have any action after
WWII where a crap president nuked Japan and placed American citizens in
concentration camps?
Regarding nuking Japan, nothing happened because we won. People
making the decisions did not understand what nuclear weapons would do:
when generals visted the site where the first test explosion occured,
they did not know what to make of it - the desert sand being fused to
glass while there was not a large hole in the ground, and that was
outside their experience. They were baffled. As the decision
percolated upwards, fewer and fewer details went into it and when it
finally reached Harry Truman, Truman basically said, "If it will
shorten the war, do it." They ignored the scientists who had worked
on it - they probably thought the scientific community was too
liberal.

As to the internment camps, you can read the history of it at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment>. While it
took way too long, the U.S. eventually admitted it was wrong and paid
reparations (too little, IMHO). What Roosevelt authorized was Executive
Order 9066, which allowed the military to designate "military areas"
as "exclusion zones". Then the military made the exclusion zone the
whole west coast, not just the area immediately surrounding some
bases. A general level of racism endemic to the U.S. at the time
contributed.
Post by Joe King Eu
Or when another crap president lied about North
Vietnamese naval vessel attacks on US ships? (A crap lied and 58,000 died)
Historically inaccurate. Read up on the Gulf of Tonkin incident at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident>. There had in
fact been some shooting a few days earlier (who shot first is not
clear), and the second alleged attack was based on the first of a
series of conflicting reports. Nobody really knows what happened,
although there is evidence that some of the reports (if not all) were
due to a sonar operator (possibly "overeager") misinterpreting the
sounds he heard. Johnson used the first report and did not correct
it as more data became available. But, if it wasn't that incident,
they would have waited for another.

What really caused the War was JFK's assassination - he had become
disillusioned with the corrupt South Vietnamese government and had
become a limited recall of American personnel. Johnson, by contrast,
escalated the conflict due to "percieved expansionist policies of the
Soviet Union" that he wanted to push back. [All quotes refer to
phrases in the wikipedia article.]
Post by Joe King Eu
Now you have a crap president attempting to institute a fascist regime with
his demand for control of private enterprise. <snip>
This is a conspiracy theory and does not deserve a comment.
MioMyo
2009-05-17 13:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
You Craps don't get it.
You'd look like less of an idiot if you dropped the silly name calling.
Oh this is Rich... so you think in that vein, you hold some morsel of
Credibility?

ROFLMFAO.................
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
Why do you suppose we didn't have any action after
WWII where a crap president nuked Japan and placed American citizens in
concentration camps?
Regarding nuking Japan, nothing happened because we won.
But... but.... but... that's not the left's argument. winning is not the
objective. The objective is to do so according to the left's ever-waivering
moral code of ethics, like by doing so without putting panties on the head
of the enemy when trying to extract information from them.
Post by Bill Z.
People
when generals visted the site where the first test explosion occured,
they did not know what to make of it - the desert sand being fused to
glass while there was not a large hole in the ground, and that was
outside their experience. They were baffled. As the decision
percolated upwards, fewer and fewer details went into it and when it
finally reached Harry Truman, Truman basically said, "If it will
shorten the war, do it." They ignored the scientists who had worked
on it - they probably thought the scientific community was too
liberal.
As to the internment camps, you can read the history of it at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment>. While it
took way too long, the U.S. eventually admitted it was wrong and paid
reparations (too little, IMHO). What Roosevelt authorized was Executive
Order 9066, which allowed the military to designate "military areas"
as "exclusion zones". Then the military made the exclusion zone the
whole west coast, not just the area immediately surrounding some
bases. A general level of racism endemic to the U.S. at the time
contributed.
Post by Joe King Eu
Or when another crap president lied about North
Vietnamese naval vessel attacks on US ships? (A crap lied and 58,000 died)
Historically inaccurate. Read up on the Gulf of Tonkin incident at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident>. There had in
fact been some shooting a few days earlier (who shot first is not
clear), and the second alleged attack was based on the first of a
series of conflicting reports. Nobody really knows what happened,
although there is evidence that some of the reports (if not all) were
due to a sonar operator (possibly "overeager") misinterpreting the
sounds he heard. Johnson used the first report and did not correct
it as more data became available. But, if it wasn't that incident,
they would have waited for another.
What really caused the War was JFK's assassination - he had become
disillusioned with the corrupt South Vietnamese government and had
become a limited recall of American personnel. Johnson, by contrast,
escalated the conflict due to "percieved expansionist policies of the
Soviet Union" that he wanted to push back. [All quotes refer to
phrases in the wikipedia article.]
Post by Joe King Eu
Now you have a crap president attempting to institute a fascist regime with
his demand for control of private enterprise. <snip>
This is a conspiracy theory and does not deserve a comment.
And you are not the intelligencia icon which you idolize yourself being,
tard.....
Bill Z.
2009-05-18 19:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
You Craps don't get it.
You'd look like less of an idiot if you dropped the silly name calling.
Oh this is Rich... so you think in that vein, you hold some morsel of
Credibility?
Calling you an idiot is a factual statement, not name calling.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
Why do you suppose we didn't have any action after
WWII where a crap president nuked Japan and placed American citizens in
concentration camps?
Regarding nuking Japan, nothing happened because we won.
But... but.... but... that's not the left's argument. winning is not
the objective.
The idea that winners in wars usually don't prosecute their generals
for war crimes is neither a left-wing nor right-wing argument, but
merely an observation of human behavior.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
when generals visted the site where the first test explosion occured,
they did not know what to make of it - the desert sand being fused to
glass while there was not a large hole in the ground, and that was
outside their experience. They were baffled. As the decision
percolated upwards, fewer and fewer details went into it and when it
finally reached Harry Truman, Truman basically said, "If it will
shorten the war, do it." They ignored the scientists who had worked
on it - they probably thought the scientific community was too
liberal.
As to the internment camps, you can read the history of it at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment>. While it
took way too long, the U.S. eventually admitted it was wrong and paid
reparations (too little, IMHO). What Roosevelt authorized was Executive
Order 9066, which allowed the military to designate "military areas"
as "exclusion zones". Then the military made the exclusion zone the
whole west coast, not just the area immediately surrounding some
bases. A general level of racism endemic to the U.S. at the time
contributed.
Post by Joe King Eu
Or when another crap president lied about North
Vietnamese naval vessel attacks on US ships? (A crap lied and 58,000 died)
Historically inaccurate. Read up on the Gulf of Tonkin incident at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident>. There had in
fact been some shooting a few days earlier (who shot first is not
clear), and the second alleged attack was based on the first of a
series of conflicting reports. Nobody really knows what happened,
although there is evidence that some of the reports (if not all) were
due to a sonar operator (possibly "overeager") misinterpreting the
sounds he heard. Johnson used the first report and did not correct
it as more data became available. But, if it wasn't that incident,
they would have waited for another.
What really caused the War was JFK's assassination - he had become
disillusioned with the corrupt South Vietnamese government and had
become a limited recall of American personnel. Johnson, by contrast,
escalated the conflict due to "percieved expansionist policies of the
Soviet Union" that he wanted to push back. [All quotes refer to
phrases in the wikipedia article.]
Post by Joe King Eu
Now you have a crap president attempting to institute a fascist regime with
his demand for control of private enterprise. <snip>
This is a conspiracy theory and does not deserve a comment.
And you are not the intelligencia icon which you idolize yourself
being, tard.....
What an infant.
MioMyo
2009-05-19 02:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
You Craps don't get it.
You'd look like less of an idiot if you dropped the silly name calling.
Oh this is Rich... so you think in that vein, you hold some morsel of
Credibility?
Calling you an idiot is a factual statement, not name calling.
Yet explaining to you that by your doing so , you have failed to articulate
a valid argument or point would be like trying to teach a cockroach
calculus.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
Why do you suppose we didn't have any action after
WWII where a crap president nuked Japan and placed American citizens in
concentration camps?
Regarding nuking Japan, nothing happened because we won.
But... but.... but... that's not the left's argument. winning is not
the objective.
The idea that winners in wars usually don't prosecute their generals
for war crimes is neither a left-wing nor right-wing argument, but
merely an observation of human behavior.
So when are we going to see those kangaroo court trials, libtard? And will
the Imperial Princess Pelosi be made to stand trial for her role?
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
when generals visted the site where the first test explosion occured,
they did not know what to make of it - the desert sand being fused to
glass while there was not a large hole in the ground, and that was
outside their experience. They were baffled. As the decision
percolated upwards, fewer and fewer details went into it and when it
finally reached Harry Truman, Truman basically said, "If it will
shorten the war, do it." They ignored the scientists who had worked
on it - they probably thought the scientific community was too
liberal.
As to the internment camps, you can read the history of it at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment>. While it
took way too long, the U.S. eventually admitted it was wrong and paid
reparations (too little, IMHO). What Roosevelt authorized was Executive
Order 9066, which allowed the military to designate "military areas"
as "exclusion zones". Then the military made the exclusion zone the
whole west coast, not just the area immediately surrounding some
bases. A general level of racism endemic to the U.S. at the time
contributed.
Post by Joe King Eu
Or when another crap president lied about North
Vietnamese naval vessel attacks on US ships? (A crap lied and 58,000 died)
Historically inaccurate. Read up on the Gulf of Tonkin incident at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident>. There had in
fact been some shooting a few days earlier (who shot first is not
clear), and the second alleged attack was based on the first of a
series of conflicting reports. Nobody really knows what happened,
although there is evidence that some of the reports (if not all) were
due to a sonar operator (possibly "overeager") misinterpreting the
sounds he heard. Johnson used the first report and did not correct
it as more data became available. But, if it wasn't that incident,
they would have waited for another.
What really caused the War was JFK's assassination - he had become
disillusioned with the corrupt South Vietnamese government and had
become a limited recall of American personnel. Johnson, by contrast,
escalated the conflict due to "percieved expansionist policies of the
Soviet Union" that he wanted to push back. [All quotes refer to
phrases in the wikipedia article.]
Post by Joe King Eu
Now you have a crap president attempting to institute a fascist regime with
his demand for control of private enterprise. <snip>
This is a conspiracy theory and does not deserve a comment.
And you are not the intelligencia icon which you idolize yourself
being, tard.....
What an infant.
I see I hit another one of your nerves.....

ROFLMFAO.................
Bill Z.
2009-05-19 15:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
Now you have a crap president attempting to institute a fascist regime with
his demand for control of private enterprise. <snip>
This is a conspiracy theory and does not deserve a comment.
And you are not the intelligencia icon which you idolize yourself
being, tard.....
What an infant.
I see I hit another one of your nerves.....
ROFLMFAO.................
Nerves? I just pointed out the obvious - that you behave like an
infant.
MioMyo
2009-05-20 01:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
Now you have a crap president attempting to institute a fascist regime with
his demand for control of private enterprise. <snip>
This is a conspiracy theory and does not deserve a comment.
And you are not the intelligencia icon which you idolize yourself
being, tard.....
What an infant.
I see I hit another one of your nerves.....
ROFLMFAO.................
Nerves?
Yes... it's all so obvious..........
Post by Bill Z.
I just pointed out the obvious - that you behave like an
infant.
Yet you are still blinded to your own arrogance and hypocrisy.
Bill Z.
2009-05-20 02:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
Now you have a crap president attempting to institute a fascist regime with
his demand for control of private enterprise. <snip>
This is a conspiracy theory and does not deserve a comment.
And you are not the intelligencia icon which you idolize yourself
being, tard.....
What an infant.
I see I hit another one of your nerves.....
ROFLMFAO.................
Nerves?
Yes... it's all so obvious..........
Nope, I was just stating the facts. You behave like an infant.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
I just pointed out the obvious - that you behave like an
infant.
Yet you are still blinded to your own arrogance and hypocrisy.
Complete and utter idiot.
MioMyo
2009-05-20 03:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe King Eu
Now you have a crap president attempting to institute a fascist regime with
his demand for control of private enterprise. <snip>
This is a conspiracy theory and does not deserve a comment.
And you are not the intelligencia icon which you idolize yourself
being, tard.....
What an infant.
I see I hit another one of your nerves.....
ROFLMFAO.................
Nerves?
Yes... it's all so obvious..........
Nope, I was just stating the facts. You behave like an infant.
You've proven time & again that you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in
the ass, tard.....
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
I just pointed out the obvious - that you behave like an
infant.
Yet you are still blinded to your own arrogance and hypocrisy.
Complete and utter idiot.
The truth obviously hurts you badly....

You're welcome....
Bill Z.
2009-05-20 03:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Nope, I was just stating the facts. You behave like an infant.
You've proven time & again that you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you
in the ass, tard.....
What you have proven over and over is that you are an ill-bred moron.
MioMyo
2009-05-20 04:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Nope, I was just stating the facts. You behave like an infant.
You've proven time & again that you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you
in the ass, tard.....
What you have proven over and over is that you are an ill-bred moron.
Thanks for proving my point that you can talk the talk but cannot walk the
walk.
Bill Z.
2009-05-20 06:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Nope, I was just stating the facts. You behave like an infant.
You've proven time & again that you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you
in the ass, tard.....
What you have proven over and over is that you are an ill-bred moron.
Thanks for proving my point that you can talk the talk but cannot walk
the walk.
You have no point to prove because you are useless little twirp with
an overinflated ego who basically knows nothing.
MioMyo
2009-05-20 11:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
Nope, I was just stating the facts. You behave like an infant.
You've proven time & again that you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you
in the ass, tard.....
What you have proven over and over is that you are an ill-bred moron.
Thanks for proving my point that you can talk the talk but cannot walk
the walk.
You have no point to prove because you are useless little twirp with
an overinflated ego who basically knows nothing.
So sez a libtard who went around in circles avoiding at all cost to address
this topic and most others it engages, but instead willy the lib thinks
slander, innuendo and unproven, partisan accusations a cogent argument
makes.......

NOT TARD.....

ROFLMFAO........
Bill Z.
2009-05-20 14:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Bill Z.
You have no point to prove because you are useless little twirp with
an overinflated ego who basically knows nothing.
So sez a libtard who went around in circles avoiding at all cost to
address this topic and most others it engages, but instead willy the
lib thinks slander, innuendo and unproven, partisan accusations a
cogent argument makes.......
NOT TARD.....
ROFLMFAO........
Projection.
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-16 12:37:55 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 May 2009 12:25:28 -0700,
Post by Bill Z.
Rove is going to be investigated whether MioMyo likes it or not.
Whineo only "likes" or "dislikes" as Faux or Limpballs
tells him.

Never have read anything that Whineo actually does for
himself.
BushCo Torture
2009-05-16 00:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he has
on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning the Bush
administration in death camps.
Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation pictures.
He's also floundering on what to do with the GITMO detainees and has
done a complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their
hopes and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually
endorses and implements Bush's policies......
ROFLMFAO................
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a criminal
investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under President George
W. Bush, two sources say.
Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine whether
former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed
justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006.
Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.
Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing
subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington. But
in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides, including
former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor.
Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete
Domenici (R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to
determine whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed
improperly.
The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by the
Justice Department's inspector general and the department's Office of
Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered improper
political motivations in the dismissal of several of the nine fired
federal prosecutors.
But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from White
House advisors and lawmakers.
Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
statements that officials made to the inspector general and to Congress
about the episode.
Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen.
Alberto R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy
Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty.
The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest from
the House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides Harriet E.
Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and documents.
Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony to
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other
members of the panel next month.
Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
Has Rove been convicted, libtard?
Has Pelosi? snicker.
Frank Pittel
2009-05-16 02:57:34 UTC
Permalink
In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:

: "Larry Hewitt" <***@comporium.net> wrote in message
: news:***@comporium.net...
: > MioMyo wrote:
: >> I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he has
: >> on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning the Bush
: >> administration in death camps.
: >>
: >> Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation pictures.
: >> He's also floundering on what to do with the GITMO detainees and has done
: >> a complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.
: >>
: >> Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their hopes
: >> and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually endorses
: >> and implements Bush's policies......
: >>
: >> ROFLMFAO................
: >>
: >> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
: >> Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a criminal
: >> investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under President George W.
: >> Bush, two sources say.
: >>
: >> Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
: >> prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine whether
: >> former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed
: >> justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006.
: >>
: >>
: >> Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
: >> spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.
: >>
: >> Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing
: >> subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington. But
: >> in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides, including
: >> former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor.
: >>
: >> Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete
: >> Domenici (R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to
: >> determine whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed
: >> improperly.
: >>
: >>
: >> The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by the
: >> Justice Department's inspector general and the department's Office of
: >> Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered improper
: >> political motivations in the dismissal of several of the nine fired
: >> federal prosecutors.
: >>
: >> But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
: >> investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from White
: >> House advisors and lawmakers.
: >>
: >> Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
: >> statements that officials made to the inspector general and to Congress
: >> about the episode.
: >>
: >> Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen.
: >> Alberto R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy
: >> Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty.
: >>
: >> The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest from
: >> the House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides Harriet E.
: >> Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and documents.
: >>
: >> Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony to
: >> House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other
: >> members of the panel next month.
: >>
: >
: >
: > Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?

: Has Rove been convicted, libtard?

: Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain without due
: process.

Do you forget that Republicans are considered guilty purely by having been accused.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
MioMyo
2009-05-16 03:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Pittel
: >> I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he has
: >> on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning the Bush
: >> administration in death camps.
: >>
: >> Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation pictures.
: >> He's also floundering on what to do with the GITMO detainees and has done
: >> a complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.
: >>
: >> Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their hopes
: >> and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually endorses
: >> and implements Bush's policies......
: >>
: >> ROFLMFAO................
: >>
: >>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
: >> Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a criminal
: >> investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under President George W.
: >> Bush, two sources say.
: >>
: >> Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
: >> prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine whether
: >> former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed
: >> justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006.
: >>
: >>
: >> Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
: >> spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.
: >>
: >> Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing
: >> subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington. But
: >> in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides, including
: >> former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor.
: >>
: >> Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete
: >> Domenici (R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to
: >> determine whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed
: >> improperly.
: >>
: >>
: >> The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by the
: >> Justice Department's inspector general and the department's Office of
: >> Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered improper
: >> political motivations in the dismissal of several of the nine fired
: >> federal prosecutors.
: >>
: >> But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
: >> investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from White
: >> House advisors and lawmakers.
: >>
: >> Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
: >> statements that officials made to the inspector general and to Congress
: >> about the episode.
: >>
: >> Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen.
: >> Alberto R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy
: >> Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty.
: >>
: >> The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest from
: >> the House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides Harriet E.
: >> Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and documents.
: >>
: >> Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony to
: >> House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other
: >> members of the panel next month.
: >>
: >
: >
: > Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
: Has Rove been convicted, libtard?
: Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain without due
: process.
Do you forget that Republicans are considered guilty purely by having been accused.
Or by purely being republican and having the audacity to speak up and
disagree with bamby & company.....
Post by Frank Pittel
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
Frank Pittel
2009-05-16 05:09:21 UTC
Permalink
In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:

: "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: news:***@giganews.com...
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:
: >
: > : "Larry Hewitt" <***@comporium.net> wrote in message
: > : news:***@comporium.net...
: > : > MioMyo wrote:
: > : >> I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he
: > has
: > : >> on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning the
: > Bush
: > : >> administration in death camps.
: > : >>
: > : >> Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation
: > pictures.
: > : >> He's also floundering on what to do with the GITMO detainees and has
: > done
: > : >> a complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.
: > : >>
: > : >> Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their
: > hopes
: > : >> and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually
: > endorses
: > : >> and implements Bush's policies......
: > : >>
: > : >> ROFLMFAO................
: > : >>
: > : >>
: > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
: > : >> Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a
: > criminal
: > : >> investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under President
: > George W.
: > : >> Bush, two sources say.
: > : >>
: > : >> Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
: > : >> prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine
: > whether
: > : >> former Justice Department and White House officials lied or
: > obstructed
: > : >> justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in
: > 2006.
: > : >>
: > : >>
: > : >> Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
: > : >> spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.
: > : >>
: > : >> Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing
: > : >> subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington.
: > But
: > : >> in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides,
: > including
: > : >> former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor.
: > : >>
: > : >> Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete
: > : >> Domenici (R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to
: > : >> determine whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed
: > : >> improperly.
: > : >>
: > : >>
: > : >> The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by
: > the
: > : >> Justice Department's inspector general and the department's Office of
: > : >> Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered improper
: > : >> political motivations in the dismissal of several of the nine fired
: > : >> federal prosecutors.
: > : >>
: > : >> But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
: > : >> investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from
: > White
: > : >> House advisors and lawmakers.
: > : >>
: > : >> Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
: > : >> statements that officials made to the inspector general and to
: > Congress
: > : >> about the episode.
: > : >>
: > : >> Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen.
: > : >> Alberto R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy
: > : >> Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty.
: > : >>
: > : >> The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest
: > from
: > : >> the House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides Harriet
: > E.
: > : >> Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and documents.
: > : >>
: > : >> Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony
: > to
: > : >> House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and
: > other
: > : >> members of the panel next month.
: > : >>
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
: >
: > : Has Rove been convicted, libtard?
: >
: > : Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain without
: > due
: > : process.
: >
: > Do you forget that Republicans are considered guilty purely by having been
: > accused.

: Or by purely being republican and having the audacity to speak up and
: disagree with bamby & company.....


It won't be long before laws are passed making it a crime to disagree with dumbo
or the looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-16 12:43:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:09:21 -0500, Frank Pittel
Post by Frank Pittel
It won't be long before laws are passed making it a crime to disagree with dumbo
or the looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems.
--
1) Fascists are righwting---which you are.

2) The "crime" was, and is, being played out at
elections and polling---which YOU poor assholes are
losing

3) More people agree with Obama ( 70%) than your losers
(30%)

4 SNICKER
MioMyo
2009-05-16 12:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Pittel
: >
: > Do you forget that Republicans are considered guilty purely by having been
: > accused.
: Or by purely being republican and having the audacity to speak up and
: disagree with bamby & company.....
It won't be long before laws are passed making it a crime to disagree with dumbo
or the looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems.
who said "you're either with us or against us"?
A democrat or a republican?
Impeccable illogic like this is exactly why I'd never want to find myself in
a foxhole with a coward libtard like this one. Yes when in a war or battle,
one must chose what side one is one. You obviously want to change sides like
some of the jihadist do depending on which side you think provides your
favor......
Oh, and go read Ann Coulter's articles or listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Why not? I hold my nose while watching Olbermann, Matthews, Ray and other
Libtard news outlet nonsense.

You obviously don't believe libs are intelliegent enough to filter and
discern for themselves.
Say, Frank Pitiful, how about using REAL arguments in a discussion?
Practice what you preach, tard......
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-16 18:42:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:52:05 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Impeccable illogic like this is exactly why I'd never want to find myself in
a foxhole with a coward libtard like this one
Better you ask yourself---"would you like to be in a
foxhole getting your ass shot caused by a lying sack of
shit like bush---for NO reason"??
MioMyo
2009-05-16 19:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:52:05 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Impeccable illogic like this is exactly why I'd never want to find myself in
a foxhole with a coward libtard like this one
Better you ask yourself---"would you like to be in a
foxhole getting your ass shot caused by a lying sack of
shit like bush---for NO reason"??
You're a nincompoop, libtard....
MioMyo
2009-05-17 02:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:52:05 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Impeccable illogic like this is exactly why I'd never want to find
myself
in
a foxhole with a coward libtard like this one
Better you ask yourself---"would you like to be in a
foxhole getting your ass shot caused by a lying sack of
shit like bush---for NO reason"??
You're a nincompoop, libtard....
Thanks for proving my point that you cannot control your knee-jerk
emotional, nonsensical hatred for any and all democrats....
Prove Bush lied tard. None of you hate filled radical lefties have yet.
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-17 13:10:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:06:37 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
Thanks for proving my point that you cannot control your knee-jerk
emotional, nonsensical hatred for any and all democrats....
Prove Bush lied tard.
Oh, did you find those "slam-dunk" WMD, WipeYourAsseo?
MioMyo
2009-05-17 14:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:06:37 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
Thanks for proving my point that you cannot control your knee-jerk
emotional, nonsensical hatred for any and all democrats....
Prove Bush lied tard.
Oh, did you find those "slam-dunk" WMD, WipeYourAsseo?
Is that suppose to be your proof, tard?
Frank Pittel
2009-05-17 16:02:04 UTC
Permalink
In alt.politics.usa.republican MioMyo <***@somewhere.com> wrote:

: <***@SillyWalk.com> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: > On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:06:37 -0700, "MioMyo"
: > <***@Somewhere.com> wrote:
: >
: >>> Thanks for proving my point that you cannot control your knee-jerk
: >>> emotional, nonsensical hatred for any and all democrats....
: >>
: >>Prove Bush lied tard.
: >
: > Oh, did you find those "slam-dunk" WMD, WipeYourAsseo?


: Is that suppose to be your proof, tard?

He's been asked to prove his fantasy that Bush lied and has never been able to
find any. His normal response is to try and change the subject and when that doesn't
work he tries to change the definition of the word lie.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-16 12:41:50 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:41:59 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Or by purely being republican and having the audacity to speak up and
disagree with bamby & company.....
However we KNOW why "republicans are speaking up", you
ingorant fuckwit

Loss of major elections

Loss of presidency

Loss of governorships

Loss of Senate

Loss of House

Public opinion polling of identification with GOP---20%

Public opinion polling related to performance, policy,
trust, defense etc----All democrats favor

You're calling it to attention to evade your failing

Whether or not Pelosi was, or was not fully briefed has
NO relevance to government.
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-16 12:38:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:57:34 -0500, Frank Pittel
Post by Frank Pittel
Do you forget that Republicans are considered guilty purely by having been accused.
Ya fuckwit

You didn't find anything wrong with that all during the
90's against Clinton.
Larry Hewitt
2009-05-16 04:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he
has on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning
the Bush administration in death camps.
Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation
pictures. He's also floundering on what to do with the GITMO
detainees and has done a complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their
hopes and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually
endorses and implements Bush's policies......
ROFLMFAO................
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a
criminal investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under
President George W. Bush, two sources say.
Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine
whether former Justice Department and White House officials lied or
obstructed justice in connection with the dismissal of federal
prosecutors in 2006.
Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.
Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing
subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington.
But in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides,
including former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and
Sara Taylor.
Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete
Domenici (R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to
determine whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed
improperly.
The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by
the Justice Department's inspector general and the department's
Office of Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered
improper political motivations in the dismissal of several of the
nine fired federal prosecutors.
But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from
White House advisors and lawmakers.
Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
statements that officials made to the inspector general and to
Congress about the episode.
Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen.
Alberto R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy
Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty.
The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest
from the House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides
Harriet E. Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and
documents.
Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony
to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and
other members of the panel next month.
Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
Has Rove been convicted, libtard?
Nope.

Why are you advocating against an investigation that might lead to a
conviction, rightard?

Why are you changing the subject, liar?


Larry
Post by MioMyo
Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain without
due process.
Post by Larry Hewitt
Thought so.
No you never think, or you're incapable of doing so.
Post by Larry Hewitt
Larry
Frank Pittel
2009-05-16 05:08:00 UTC
Permalink
In alt.politics.usa.republican Larry Hewitt <***@comporium.net> wrote:
: MioMyo wrote:
: >
: > "Larry Hewitt" <***@comporium.net> wrote in message
: > news:***@comporium.net...
: >> MioMyo wrote:
: >>> I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he
: >>> has on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning
: >>> the Bush administration in death camps.
: >>>
: >>> Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation
: >>> pictures. He's also floundering on what to do with the GITMO
: >>> detainees and has done a complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.
: >>>
: >>> Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their
: >>> hopes and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually
: >>> endorses and implements Bush's policies......
: >>>
: >>> ROFLMFAO................
: >>>
: >>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
: >>> Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a
: >>> criminal investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under
: >>> President George W. Bush, two sources say.
: >>>
: >>> Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
: >>> prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine
: >>> whether former Justice Department and White House officials lied or
: >>> obstructed justice in connection with the dismissal of federal
: >>> prosecutors in 2006.
: >>>
: >>>
: >>> Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
: >>> spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.
: >>>
: >>> Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing
: >>> subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington.
: >>> But in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides,
: >>> including former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and
: >>> Sara Taylor.
: >>>
: >>> Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete
: >>> Domenici (R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to
: >>> determine whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed
: >>> improperly.
: >>>
: >>>
: >>> The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by
: >>> the Justice Department's inspector general and the department's
: >>> Office of Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered
: >>> improper political motivations in the dismissal of several of the
: >>> nine fired federal prosecutors.
: >>>
: >>> But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
: >>> investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from
: >>> White House advisors and lawmakers.
: >>>
: >>> Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
: >>> statements that officials made to the inspector general and to
: >>> Congress about the episode.
: >>>
: >>> Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen.
: >>> Alberto R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy
: >>> Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty.
: >>>
: >>> The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest
: >>> from the House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides
: >>> Harriet E. Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and
: >>> documents.
: >>>
: >>> Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony
: >>> to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and
: >>> other members of the panel next month.
: >>>
: >>
: >>
: >> Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
: >
: > Has Rove been convicted, libtard?
: >

: Nope.

: Why are you advocating against an investigation that might lead to a
: conviction, rightard?

A conviction for what?? Bush fired people that he had every right to fire.
He could fire them anytime he wanted to and when he wanted to fire them he
did. No laws were broken.

This is a political witch hunt pure and simple.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
MioMyo
2009-05-16 12:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
Post by Larry Hewitt
Post by MioMyo
I guess we can only ask if bamby will do a reversal on this like he has
on so many other left-wing extremist wish-list for imprisoning the Bush
administration in death camps.
Let's see bamby just reversed himself on those interrogation pictures.
He's also floundering on what to do with the GITMO detainees and has
done a complete 180 on both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Code Pinkos have got to be wetting their panties watching all their
hopes and dreams for executing Bush at the stake when bamby actually
endorses and implements Bush's policies......
ROFLMFAO................
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove15-2009may15,0,3099864.story
Washington -- Karl Rove will be interviewed today as part of a criminal
investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys under President George
W. Bush, two sources say.
Rove, a former senior aide to Bush, will be questioned by Connecticut
prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who in September was named to examine whether
former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed
justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006.
Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Rove, declined to comment. Tom Carson, a
spokesman for Dannehy, also declined to comment.
Dannehy has operated mostly out of the public spotlight, issuing
subpoenas for documents through a federal grand jury in Washington. But
in recent weeks, she has interviewed other government aides, including
former White House political deputies Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor.
Dannehy also has reached out to representatives of former Sen. Pete
Domenici (R-N.M.) and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, in an effort to
determine whether New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was removed
improperly.
The firings were the focus of a lengthy report released last fall by
the Justice Department's inspector general and the department's Office
of Professional Responsibility. Investigators there uncovered improper
political motivations in the dismissal of several of the nine fired
federal prosecutors.
But the department's own probe was thwarted in part because its
investigators did not have the authority to compel testimony from White
House advisors and lawmakers.
Experts say that a particular source of interest for Dannehy will be
statements that officials made to the inspector general and to Congress
about the episode.
Outcry over the firings contributed to the departure of Atty. Gen.
Alberto R. Gonzales; his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson; and Deputy
Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty.
The prosecutors' firings also are the subject of intense interest from
the House Judiciary Committee, which sued former Bush aides Harriet E.
Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for access to testimony and documents.
Rove is also tentatively scheduled to provide closed-door testimony to
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other
members of the panel next month.
Advocating that criminal activity not be prosecuted. huh?
Has Rove been convicted, libtard?
Nope.
Why are you advocating against an investigation that might lead to a
conviction, rightard?
I'm not... What I'm advocating for is for the left to dispense with trial by
liberal media whores. Instead, make the official charge and go for a public
trial of the entire Bush administration (including supporters- as has been
advocated by your ilk ad nauseum).

At stake shoule be public execution which is what your ilk have indicated
they want for anyone who dare challenge your nonsensical claims & charges.
Post by Larry Hewitt
Why are you changing the subject, liar?
You're the liar. since I started this thread and linked the Rove
inquisition, tard......

Sorry you can't connect the dots because libtards have wanted to try and
execute Rove for years now- mainly because he was the instrument which got
Bush elected- thereby dening libs their birth right to the throne of power.
Post by Larry Hewitt
Larry
Post by MioMyo
Only a fascist would claim someone a criminal for partisan gain without
due process.
Post by Larry Hewitt
Thought so.
No you never think, or you're incapable of doing so.
Post by Larry Hewitt
Larry
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-16 18:44:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:59:58 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Sorry you can't connect the dots because libtards have wanted to try and
execute Rove for years now- mainly because he was the instrument which got
Bush elected- thereby dening libs their birth right to the throne of power.
Rove has uttered more lies, more dissention, more
idioitic crap (and if you recall--he LOST the vote in
2000, so he's loser from the get-go)---than Clinton
ever did

MOF, the BIGGEST liar in the 20th century (and
PERJURER) was ronnie-raygun in his "We did not sell
arms to Iran lies" in the Pointdexter deposition

So stick it in your ass.
MioMyo
2009-05-16 19:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for proving my point that you cannot control your knee-jerk
emotional, nonsensical hatred for any and all republicans....
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:59:58 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Sorry you can't connect the dots because libtards have wanted to try and
execute Rove for years now- mainly because he was the instrument which got
Bush elected- thereby dening libs their birth right to the throne of power.
Rove has uttered more lies, more dissention, more
idioitic crap (and if you recall--he LOST the vote in
2000, so he's loser from the get-go)---than Clinton
ever did
MOF, the BIGGEST liar in the 20th century (and
PERJURER) was ronnie-raygun in his "We did not sell
arms to Iran lies" in the Pointdexter deposition
So stick it in your ass.
P***@SillyWalk.com
2009-05-17 01:40:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:42:09 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Thanks for proving my point that you cannot control your knee-jerk
emotional, nonsensical hatred for any and all republicans...
Wrong again fuckwit

I hate anyone willing to subvert the constittuion for
their own political gains (impeachment with NO
substance to the allegations); War based on LIES;
Refusal to take responsiblity and admit
mistakes---continuation of failed policy (and the lies
connected to it)

Since the mid-60's, the GOP has become the southern
racist party that backs the worst america has to offer

Conservatism has been the WORST political ideology ever
to hit America.
MioMyo
2009-05-17 14:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:42:09 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Thanks for proving my point that you cannot control your knee-jerk
emotional, nonsensical hatred for any and all republicans...
Wrong again fuckwit
I hate anyone willing to subvert the constittuion for
their own political gains
So you hate yourself and the entire radical liberal establishment?

Good start lib....
Post by P***@SillyWalk.com
(impeachment with NO
substance to the allegations); War based on LIES;
Refusal to take responsiblity and admit
mistakes---continuation of failed policy (and the lies
connected to it)
Since the mid-60's, the GOP has become the southern
racist party that backs the worst america has to offer
Conservatism has been the WORST political ideology ever
to hit America.
Thanks for that minority opinion from the extreme left wing of the radical
left wing...........
Loading...