| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"papa jack" |
| Date: |
23 Oct 2004 04:31:30 PM |
| Object: |
Left-Wing Media Hoaxes |
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2004/jhw_1021p.shtml
_________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"Leapfrogged Hundreds Hoax - Left-Wing Media (LWM) asserts
GWB was leapfrogged over hundreds of Texas Air National
Guard(TANG) applicants to protect him from the draft and
avoid Vietnam. There is no truth to this assertion; there
was 'no waiting list' for 'qualified pilot applicants' in
May 1968 when GWB applied to the TANG (147th Fighter Inter-
ceptor Group [FIG]). In mid 1968, the 147th FIG (the unit
GWB signed up with) was under manned by 156 military person-
nel (130 enlisted and 26 officer positions). Pilots, on
occasion, had to be recruited outside Texas to fill vacant
pilot positions. A coveted pilot slot in the ANG in 1968
was a LWM myth.
"There were reasons why the TANG was short of pilots. At the
time GWB applied for a pilot slot, the 147th TIG was routinely
deploying F-102 pilots to Vietnam to fly combat missions. These
deployments came at a time when squadron pilot positions were
not fully manned. In May 1968, the 147th TIG found it challeng-
ing to find qualified pilots due to:
(1) stringent educational, security clearance and physical
requirements to qualify for an ANG pilot slot and United
States Air Force (USAF) pilot training;
(2) a six-year service commitment; and
(3) the "danger factor (70 pilots were killed flying the F-102).
{http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/001023.html}
A six-year commitment, stringent requirements and risky training
(versus the alternative - serve 2 years of enlisted time) made
pilot training a very uninviting option - if anyone were trying
to avoid Vietnam.
"Can it be validated that there was 'no waiting list for qualified
pilot applicants in May 1968' when GWB applied for the TANG? Yes
it can. Four separate entities can confirm no waiting list: First,
the pilots that were flying in the 147th TIG (111th TIS) in May
1968; Second, the ANG senior officers that were in the 147th TIG
in May 1968; Third, the Director of Operations for the TANG (when
GWB was in the ANG) Colonel Earl Lively says: there was no waiting
list for qualified pilot applicants to get in the TANG as a pilot
in 1968;
{http://www.penraker.com/archives/000423.html}
"and Fourth, the TANG history indicates no waiting list for quali-
fied pilot applicants in May 1968. Even later, when there were
waiting lists, practically all applicants were applying for ANG
enlisted positions and not for officer pilot training.
[...]
_________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack commented:
Added information can be read at
"Bush and I were Lieutenants"
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
"Answering Kerry's Questions"
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040831-094211-3678r.htm
"Bush and Uncommon Valor"
http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/2004/jw_0302.shtml
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
23 Oct 2004 11:18:07 PM |
|
|
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 12:26:13 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<clfadu$no2
$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
Calling the president a liar is both inappropriate and inaccurate.
1) A lie is the deliberate act of telling the opposite of what
one *knows* is the truth. More accurately, people should be
saying that he came to wrong conclusions or assumptions about
Iraq having WMD.
2) It seems a great number of people easily forget that the President
wasn't the only person who came to that wrong assumption. Indeed,
there were *many* others who also thought Iraq had weapons of mass
destructions.
Kerry said this just before the war:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp
for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein
with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Here are more democratic speeches:
http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=285848&PT=PERSONALITIES
Well, have they all lied?
How about these:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
Wow! I suppose they lied too?
Here's a complete speech by Kerry:
http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=317195&PT=PERSONALITIES
Why don't people post about Kerrys lies? Where's the balance?
One wonders what Al Gore would have done if he had become the
president?
Question: How do people so easily forget these speeches?
The Answer is, media bias. I may be wrong about this but I think the
media conveniently 'forgot' those speeches in order to report only
what the public wants to hear. The media knows the public believes one
thing based on letters to the editors, polls, etc. So stories are
slanted to support that way of thinking. After all, who wants to hear
something other than what the been lead (brainwashed) to believe.
Would you buy a paper prints what you don't want to hear?
All this fuels hatred!
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 01:52:53 PM |
|
|
(Dana) wrote in news:2afb3e8b.0410242126.5187dee6
@posting.google.com:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<clfadu$no2
$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
Calling the president a liar is both inappropriate and inaccurate.
it is neither inaccurate nor inappropriate.
buah, and his administration, have lied repeatedly. to deny that is
inappropriate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
24 Oct 2004 08:59:10 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
24 Oct 2004 12:26:02 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
24 Oct 2004 01:13:07 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
24 Oct 2004 07:39:39 PM |
|
|
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
24 Oct 2004 09:37:51 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:%UXed.619$W21.52@news02.roc.ny...
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Silly us....
If *you* call Bush a liar, you're being factual.
If Ray calls Bush a liar, and labels JackAss the same, he is a "***** for a
political party."
War is peace, ain't it Frank?
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 08:55:22 AM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:%UXed.619$W21.52@news02.roc.ny...
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Silly us....
If *you* call Bush a liar, you're being factual.
Not if - when.
If Ray calls Bush a liar, and labels JackAss the same, he is a "***** for a
political party."
Did I call Ray a political *****?
Didn't think so.
War is peace, ain't it Frank?
War is ridiculous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 09:18:48 AM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:eB7fd.829$9w6.487@news01.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:%UXed.619$W21.52@news02.roc.ny...
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Silly us....
If *you* call Bush a liar, you're being factual.
Not if - when.
Whatever. Semantics are kids games.
If Ray calls Bush a liar, and labels JackAss the same, he is a "*****
for a
political party."
Did I call Ray a political *****?
Didn't think so.
Look about 21 lines, above.....
So, you didn't call Ray a "***** for a political party" (to properly quote
you)? It certainly would appear that you did based on the context and
structure of your sentence.
-DMc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 06:54:28 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:eB7fd.829$9w6.487@news01.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:%UXed.619$W21.52@news02.roc.ny...
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Silly us....
If *you* call Bush a liar, you're being factual.
Not if - when.
Whatever. Semantics are kids games.
If and when have two different meanings, and semantics is an adult game.
If Ray calls Bush a liar, and labels JackAss the same, he is a "*****
for a
political party."
Did I call Ray a political *****?
Didn't think so.
Look about 21 lines, above.....
So, you didn't call Ray a "***** for a political party" (to properly quote
you)? It certainly would appear that you did based on the context and
structure of your sentence.
"being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I don't feel the
need to repeat (that Bush is a liar) every time I post."
Based on the content and structure of that sentence, I didn't call
anyone a political ***** - I asserted the fact that I am not one.
If I now say I'm not a bluefish, will you accuse me of calling you a
bluefish?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 07:37:06 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:khgfd.672$OC1.244@news02.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:eB7fd.829$9w6.487@news01.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:%UXed.619$W21.52@news02.roc.ny...
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Silly us....
If *you* call Bush a liar, you're being factual.
Not if - when.
Whatever. Semantics are kids games.
If and when have two different meanings, and semantics is an adult game.
No. Semantics is a kids game, played by those that have no response, so they
look for something to say, no matter how trivial.
If you want to say "when," then fine....say it. In the context of my post,
though, the shifting of the words doesn't mean *****. You're still applying
two standards: one to you, one to Ray.
If Ray calls Bush a liar, and labels JackAss the same, he is a "*****
for a
political party."
Did I call Ray a political *****?
Didn't think so.
Look about 21 lines, above.....
So, you didn't call Ray a "***** for a political party" (to properly
quote
you)? It certainly would appear that you did based on the context and
structure of your sentence.
"being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I don't feel the
need to repeat (that Bush is a liar) every time I post."
Based on the content and structure of that sentence, I didn't call
anyone a political ***** - I asserted the fact that I am not one.
If I now say I'm not a bluefish, will you accuse me of calling you a
bluefish?
Invalid analogy. You're expecting this single sentence to stand alone in
trying to make your point, whereas in reference to Ray, your statement was
within an overall context.
A more accurate point would be:
"Since I'm not a childmolester, I don't feel the need to say it every time I
post." By stating it in this manner, I am implying, by own denial, that you
*are* a child molester.
If that's not what you meant, then so be it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
26 Oct 2004 09:06:47 AM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:khgfd.672$OC1.244@news02.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:eB7fd.829$9w6.487@news01.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:%UXed.619$W21.52@news02.roc.ny...
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Silly us....
If *you* call Bush a liar, you're being factual.
Not if - when.
Whatever. Semantics are kids games.
If and when have two different meanings, and semantics is an adult game.
No. Semantics is a kids game, played by those that have no response, so they
look for something to say, no matter how trivial.
See a lot of kids playing semantics, do ya?
If you want to say "when," then fine....say it. In the context of my post,
though, the shifting of the words doesn't mean *****.
Actually, it does. It isn't a matter of "if" I call Bush a liar, beacuse
I certainly have and will again. It's a matter of "when" I call him a liar.
You're still applying two standards: one to you, one to Ray.
You're extrapolating false conclusions. What's that about semantics again?
If Ray calls Bush a liar, and labels JackAss the same, he is a "*****
for a
political party."
Did I call Ray a political *****?
Didn't think so.
Look about 21 lines, above.....
So, you didn't call Ray a "***** for a political party" (to properly
quote
you)? It certainly would appear that you did based on the context and
structure of your sentence.
"being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I don't feel the
need to repeat (that Bush is a liar) every time I post."
Based on the content and structure of that sentence, I didn't call
anyone a political ***** - I asserted the fact that I am not one.
If I now say I'm not a bluefish, will you accuse me of calling you a
bluefish?
Invalid analogy. You're expecting this single sentence to stand alone in
trying to make your point, whereas in reference to Ray, your statement was
within an overall context.
Reference to Ray? What reference to Ray?
A more accurate point would be:
"Since I'm not a childmolester, I don't feel the need to say it every time I
post." By stating it in this manner, I am implying, by own denial, that you
*are* a child molester.
No you aren't. By stating it in that manner, you aren't referencing anyone.
If that's not what you meant, then so be it.
Since I'm not a bluefish, I don't feel the need to say it every time I post.
Now, do you honestly think I'm calling YOU a bluefish?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
26 Oct 2004 02:42:08 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:OJsfd.716$rj2.399@news02.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:khgfd.672$OC1.244@news02.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:eB7fd.829$9w6.487@news01.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:%UXed.619$W21.52@news02.roc.ny...
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by
Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent
Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party,
I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's
relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Silly us....
If *you* call Bush a liar, you're being factual.
Not if - when.
Whatever. Semantics are kids games.
If and when have two different meanings, and semantics is an adult game.
No. Semantics is a kids game, played by those that have no response, so
they
look for something to say, no matter how trivial.
See a lot of kids playing semantics, do ya?
Yup.
All the damn time.
If you want to say "when," then fine....say it. In the context of my
post,
though, the shifting of the words doesn't mean *****.
Actually, it does. It isn't a matter of "if" I call Bush a liar, beacuse
I certainly have and will again. It's a matter of "when" I call him a
liar.
You're still applying two standards: one to you, one to Ray.
You're extrapolating false conclusions. What's that about semantics again?
If Ray calls Bush a liar, and labels JackAss the same, he is a "*****
for a
political party."
Did I call Ray a political *****?
Didn't think so.
Look about 21 lines, above.....
So, you didn't call Ray a "***** for a political party" (to properly
quote
you)? It certainly would appear that you did based on the context and
structure of your sentence.
"being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I don't feel the
need to repeat (that Bush is a liar) every time I post."
Based on the content and structure of that sentence, I didn't call
anyone a political ***** - I asserted the fact that I am not one.
If I now say I'm not a bluefish, will you accuse me of calling you a
bluefish?
Invalid analogy. You're expecting this single sentence to stand alone in
trying to make your point, whereas in reference to Ray, your statement
was
within an overall context.
Reference to Ray? What reference to Ray?
A more accurate point would be:
"Since I'm not a childmolester, I don't feel the need to say it every
time I
post." By stating it in this manner, I am implying, by own denial, that
you
*are* a child molester.
No you aren't. By stating it in that manner, you aren't referencing
anyone.
If that's not what you meant, then so be it.
Since I'm not a bluefish, I don't feel the need to say it every time I
post.
Now, do you honestly think I'm calling YOU a bluefish?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
27 Oct 2004 10:58:48 AM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:OJsfd.716$rj2.399@news02.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:khgfd.672$OC1.244@news02.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:eB7fd.829$9w6.487@news01.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:%UXed.619$W21.52@news02.roc.ny...
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by
Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent
Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party,
I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's
relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Silly us....
If *you* call Bush a liar, you're being factual.
Not if - when.
Whatever. Semantics are kids games.
If and when have two different meanings, and semantics is an adult game.
No. Semantics is a kids game, played by those that have no response, so
they
look for something to say, no matter how trivial.
See a lot of kids playing semantics, do ya?
Yup.
All the damn time.
So semantics is a kids game, huh? Does that depend on what the meaning
of "is" is?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 08:59:27 AM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:eB7fd.829$9w6.487@news01.roc.ny...
The other Donald wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:%UXed.619$W21.52@news02.roc.ny...
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Silly us....
If *you* call Bush a liar, you're being factual.
Not if - when.
If Ray calls Bush a liar, and labels JackAss the same, he is a "***** for
a
political party."
Did I call Ray a political *****?
Didn't think so.
War is peace, ain't it Frank?
War is ridiculous.
As ridiculous as War is, sometimes war is necessary and serves a purpose.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
24 Oct 2004 11:50:56 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:%UXed.619$W21.52
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Pay attention yourself Frank. Your lie is calling Ray a liar and stupid
when you know neither is true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 09:08:14 AM |
|
|
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:%UXed.619$W21.52
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Pay attention yourself Frank. Your lie is calling Ray a liar and stupid
when you know neither is true.
When you're finished, get up off your knees and you'll realize that if
someone says that Iraq has never threatened the U.S., they're lying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 08:04:52 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in
news:iN7fd.833$mt6.300@news01.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:%UXed.619$W21.52
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Pay attention yourself Frank. Your lie is calling Ray a liar and
stupid when you know neither is true.
When you're finished, get up off your knees and you'll realize that if
someone says that Iraq has never threatened the U.S., they're lying.
I believe he said Iraq_was_not_a_threat_to_the_U.S., which is true, it
wasn't. Again, you are the liar Frank, not Ray.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
26 Oct 2004 09:08:38 AM |
|
|
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in
news:iN7fd.833$mt6.300@news01.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:%UXed.619$W21.52
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Pay attention yourself Frank. Your lie is calling Ray a liar and
stupid when you know neither is true.
When you're finished, get up off your knees and you'll realize that if
someone says that Iraq has never threatened the U.S., they're lying.
I believe he said Iraq_was_not_a_threat_to_the_U.S., which is true, it
wasn't. Again, you are the liar Frank, not Ray.
"Iraq has never attacked or threatened the US" is EXACTLY what he said.
Do yourself a favor, go to Google-Groups and do a search for that exact
phrase in this forum. Surprise!
No need to apologize.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
28 Oct 2004 12:18:18 AM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in
news:iN7fd.833$mt6.300@news01.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:%UXed.619$W21.52
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Pay attention yourself Frank. Your lie is calling Ray a liar and
stupid when you know neither is true.
When you're finished, get up off your knees and you'll realize that if
someone says that Iraq has never threatened the U.S., they're lying.
I believe he said Iraq_was_not_a_threat_to_the_U.S., which is true, it
wasn't. Again, you are the liar Frank, not Ray.
"Iraq has never attacked or threatened the US" is EXACTLY what he said.
And you have yet to provide an example of an attack or a threat.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
28 Oct 2004 10:43:13 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in
news:iN7fd.833$mt6.300@news01.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:%UXed.619$W21.52
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Pay attention yourself Frank. Your lie is calling Ray a liar and
stupid when you know neither is true.
When you're finished, get up off your knees and you'll realize that if
someone says that Iraq has never threatened the U.S., they're lying.
I believe he said Iraq_was_not_a_threat_to_the_U.S., which is true, it
wasn't. Again, you are the liar Frank, not Ray.
"Iraq has never attacked or threatened the US" is EXACTLY what he said.
And you have yet to provide an example of an attack or a threat.
Man, you're getting really desperate here, huh? You're actually asking
for evidence that Iraq had threatened the United States, when you know
full well that Iraq repeatedly threatened to, and did, lock on or fire
at American and British aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. Locking on
is a threat, firing is an attack.
If you really need to see links to stories, if you really don't think
those threats and attacks ever happened, fine.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/29/iraq.02/
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html
I could probably find a hundred or so additional links that confirm the
same. However, you could too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
31 Oct 2004 01:19:51 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in
news:iN7fd.833$mt6.300@news01.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:%UXed.619$W21.52
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Pay attention yourself Frank. Your lie is calling Ray a liar and
stupid when you know neither is true.
When you're finished, get up off your knees and you'll realize that if
someone says that Iraq has never threatened the U.S., they're lying.
I believe he said Iraq_was_not_a_threat_to_the_U.S., which is true, it
wasn't. Again, you are the liar Frank, not Ray.
"Iraq has never attacked or threatened the US" is EXACTLY what he said.
And you have yet to provide an example of an attack or a threat.
Man, you're getting really desperate here, huh?
You're the one trying to pretend that Iraq attacking an invading force
is the same as attacking the United States.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
26 Oct 2004 08:12:31 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:XRsfd.717$xx1.110
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in
news:iN7fd.833$mt6.300@news01.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:%UXed.619$W21.52
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Pay attention yourself Frank. Your lie is calling Ray a liar and
stupid when you know neither is true.
When you're finished, get up off your knees and you'll realize that if
someone says that Iraq has never threatened the U.S., they're lying.
I believe he said Iraq_was_not_a_threat_to_the_U.S., which is true, it
wasn't. Again, you are the liar Frank, not Ray.
"Iraq has never attacked or threatened the US" is EXACTLY what he said.
Do yourself a favor, go to Google-Groups and do a search for that exact
phrase in this forum. Surprise!
No need to apologize.
I don't apologize because there is no need to. Do you see any quotation
marks in my statement above? I paraphrased to get the messsage across that
Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. We note that you didn't respond to that
known fact which was not a lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
27 Oct 2004 10:51:51 AM |
|
|
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:XRsfd.717$xx1.110
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in
news:iN7fd.833$mt6.300@news01.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:%UXed.619$W21.52
@news02.roc.ny:
BOB wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:clgoj9$619$1
@bolt.sonic.net:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
The real lie is where he calls you a liar instead of Bush.
Pay attention, dummy (or try google). I've called Bush a liar many
times. However, being that I'm not a ***** for some political party, I
don't feel the need to repeat it every time I post. When it's relevant
to the discussion (and factual), I'll say it.
So, in direct response to your post: you're a liar.
Pay attention yourself Frank. Your lie is calling Ray a liar and
stupid when you know neither is true.
When you're finished, get up off your knees and you'll realize that if
someone says that Iraq has never threatened the U.S., they're lying.
I believe he said Iraq_was_not_a_threat_to_the_U.S., which is true, it
wasn't. Again, you are the liar Frank, not Ray.
"Iraq has never attacked or threatened the US" is EXACTLY what he said.
Do yourself a favor, go to Google-Groups and do a search for that exact
phrase in this forum. Surprise!
No need to apologize.
I don't apologize because there is no need to.
Nope, no need to apologize for saying I've lied where I haven't. It's
only usenet and you're anonymous, so you may sacrifice your honor if you
wish.
Do you see any quotation
marks in my statement above? I paraphrased to get the messsage across that
Iraq was not a threat to the U.S.
Oh, so you're changing the topic of discussion, and based on that,
proclaiming you were right all along?
How convenient for you.
We note that you didn't respond to that
known fact which was not a lie.
Big deal? Now you can say "the sky looks blue" and I won't respond to
that fact either. I'll still assert the KNOWN fact that Ray has lied
about Iraq, no matter how hard you try to shield yourself from
acknowledging the same.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
24 Oct 2004 07:31:14 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On October 21, 2004, the first in a series of articles by Colonel
Wambough was titled: "Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos."
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
So that's all you've said about Iraq, huh?
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
Who's neocon, *****?
BTW, if you're going to try to insult someone with imaginary words, at
least try to make up a word that a: is relevant to what they actually
are (like someone calling you an *****) and b: isn't the same
"insult" you've posted hundreds of times before (like someone calling
you an *****). Don't you have even a little imagination in that
blinded brain of yours?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
24 Oct 2004 11:05:51 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
So that's all you've said about Iraq, huh?
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
Who's neocon, *****?
BTW, if you're going to try to insult someone with imaginary words, at
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/29/nyt.safire/
and about 287,000 more, according to Google.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 12:04:12 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:clhu2u$v16$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
So that's all you've said about Iraq, huh?
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
Who's neocon, *****?
BTW, if you're going to try to insult someone with imaginary words, at
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
Mine came back "Realist."
Realist
Realists.
a.. Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
b.. Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
c.. Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or
ethical considerations
d.. Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
e.. Weigh the political costs of foreign action
f.. Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national
interest
Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
25 Oct 2004 09:07:07 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No WMD. No plans for WMD. No collaboration with terrorists.
No threat to the USA.
So that's all you've said about Iraq, huh?
Which part of that is a lie, neocon?
Who's neocon, *****?
BTW, if you're going to try to insult someone with imaginary words, at
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
Interesting little quiz.
"Based on your answers, you are most likely a liberal."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/29/nyt.safire/
and about 287,000 more, according to Google.
Like I said, don't you have an imagination of your own?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Right-Wing Media Hoaxes |
24 Oct 2004 04:01:36 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:OyOed.754$Ll3.586
@news01.roc.ny:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CBS was careless. Fox lied outright.
Notice which one Jackass is attacking.
And still Bush lied about Iraq.
And so do you. Take a number, stupid.
i never saw ray lie about iraq. can you explain your claim?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
