LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   All Hank, all the time. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=734)

Tyrone Slothrop 08-08-2006 04:53 PM

Joe runs out of gas?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Translation: He is one of the few brave patriotic democrats who stands for a terrorist free middle east and the continued existence of Israel and that is fucking up our Euro-centric, pro-radical Islamist agenda so he must be stopped at any cost.
He might have survived being kissed by Bush or kissing Cheney's ass, but the combination made it tough for him.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-08-2006 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No, I called you a liar because you lied. the same goes Neddy.
You are a lying liar who hates America. At least Joe's people admit they were lying. You are standing by the same lying story.

SlaveNoMore 08-08-2006 04:56 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Lieberman spokesman admits lying -- why won't Penske?
  • Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein admits, despite earlier accusations, that they have "no evidence" that the Lamont campaign -- or Lamont supporters -- are behind the alleged hack attack on the Lieberman campaign web site.

link
I'm sure it was Karl Rove

Penske_Account 08-08-2006 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Lieberman spokesman admits lying -- why won't Penske?
  • Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein admits, despite earlier accusations, that they have "no evidence" that the Lamont campaign -- or Lamont supporters -- are behind the alleged hack attack on the Lieberman campaign web site.

link
I never said Lamont did it. I said it was not related to Lieberman not paying his bill, as your lies represented, but rather to outside shenanigans.

I did say:

"It had nothing to do wiht paying the bill, there is some mischief afoot and the probably culpable parties are limited to Lamont or the radical leftist CT Dems, who are the party of Lamont."

Which means Lamont is a suspect. Nothing Gerstien said above (of course I didnt actually click the links, I can't read all this shite) suggests he is innocent, but rather that they have no explicit evidence he is guilty. Either way, I'd be willing to bet Slave's scotch collection that if you scracth the surface of this thing enough, a radical leftie democrat irregular will ooze to the surface, pus-like

SlaveNoMore 08-08-2006 04:59 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
You are a lying liar who hates America. At least Joe's people admit they were lying. You are standing by the same lying story.

Um, how is accusing someone that you cannot immediately prove - and most assuredly cannot disprove either - a form of lying?

Under your definition of lying, isn't everyone in Washington - Jow Wilson, for instance - a lying liar for his accusations about Karl Rove?

Penske_Account 08-08-2006 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm sure it was Karl Rove
Can't be, he is too busy addressing the fall out from his indictment.

Penske_Account 08-08-2006 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Um, how is accusing someone that you cannot immediately prove - and most assuredly cannot disprove either - a form of lying?

Under your definition of lying, isn't everyone in Washington - Jow Wilson, for instance - a lying liar for his accusations about Karl Rove?
After Rove was indicted it vindicated Wilson's and Plame's malicious lies. Much like Ty, we won't be hearing apologies from those two.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-08-2006 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I never said Lamont did it.
You shouldn't lie on the interweb. When I posted Lamont's campaign dude saying they had nothing to do with it, you said he was lying.

It's just one lie after another from you. And no shame. This kind of moral depravity is what leads to godless Communism, America-hating, and obesity. Why do you hate America?

Tyrone Slothrop 08-08-2006 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Um, how is accusing someone that you cannot immediately prove - and most assuredly cannot disprove either - a form of lying?
I think one or more words above are missing or mistaken, but I'll try to 'splain. If you say something like, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," when you don't actually have a good basis to think that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa or -- worse -- when your own intelligence people are telling you that Saddam Hussein didn't recently seek significant quantities of uranium from Africa, you are trying to mislead people, and I can consider that -- at the very least -- to be akin to lying. Unlike contemporary conservatives like Penske, I am opposed to lying.

Penske_Account 08-08-2006 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You shouldn't lie on the interweb. When I posted Lamont's campaign dude saying they had nothing to do with it, you said he was lying.

And you know they had nothing to do with it how? Objective evidentiary cite please.

ltl/fb 08-08-2006 05:16 PM

Cool technology
 
Apparently Israel has started arming some Herons, which are unmanned aerial vehicles that were thought to have always been unarmed. Pretty cool. But I'm into the UAVs.

Penske_Account 08-08-2006 05:17 PM

Cool technology
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Apparently Israel has started arming some Herons, which are unmanned aerial vehicles that were thought to have always been unarmed. Pretty cool. But I'm into the UAVs.
Ah yes, the better to take out the lie-supported terrorists!!!!

Tyrone Slothrop 08-08-2006 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And you know they had nothing to do with it how? Objective evidentiary cite please.
Here you go. Your apology accepted.

Sidd Finch 08-08-2006 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here you go. Your apology accepted.

You should put that on Wikipedia.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-08-2006 05:59 PM

Publius says Lanny Davis makes a good point.
  • If anything, he doesn't go far enough. For instance, I was in the Burger King bathroom the other day, and I saw numerous profane scribblings on the wall above the toilet paper dispenser. One provided a number of a young woman who could provide "a good time." Another was a grotesque depiction of male genitalia. Another appeared to be a red-line of a previous comment, though both were obscene.

    Clearly, Burger King is a profane institution and is possessed with vitriol and McCarthyism. I suggest a boycott and angry condemnations in the Wall Street Journal.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:45 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com