All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

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

Years from now, let's say in 2016, I will surf back to this board and posts like the above will remind me of the interweb trickery and shenanagins that the Democrat left attempts to foist upon the American public, and I will reminisce that it is much like the concerted interweb hackery of the Lamont campaign or its supporters when they tried to defeat the Honourable Joe Lieberman.

Reminiscing as above, I imagine that I will take of take sip of the then 15 year old Harlan Estate meritage (which I uncorked for the occassion), and as the wine delights my palatte, I will laugh, aloud, at how the vile deceptive tactics of the leftists were for naught. Defeated by a simple old skool force, Joe-mentum!!

Then I will say a prayer of thanks for the wine and for our then fearless leader President George P. Bush.

At the same time, I imagine, you will be somewhere, drinking a boxed wine from Natchez MS and trying to erase the bitter taste of decades of ideological defeat for your left wing team.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You should put that on Wikipedia.

Ha, still nothing to refute that ole uncle Corliss was a socialist, commie sympathiser and the uncle of Red Neddy, the interweb hacker?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Years from now, let's say in 2016, I will surf back to this board and posts like the above will remind me of the interweb trickery and shenanagins that the Democrat left attempts to foist upon the American public, and I will reminisce that it is much like the concerted interweb hackery of the Lamont campaign or its supporters when they tried to defeat the Honourable Joe Lieberman.

Reminiscing as above, I imagine that I will take of take sip of the then 15 year old Harlan Estate meritage (which I uncorked for the occassion), and as the wine delights my palatte, I will laugh, aloud, at how the vile deceptive tactics of the leftists were for naught. Defeated by a simple old skool force, Joe-mentum!!

Then I will say a prayer of thanks for the wine and for our then fearless leader President George P. Bush.

At the same time, I imagine, you will be somewhere, drinking a boxed wine from Natchez MS and trying to erase the bitter taste of decades of ideological defeat for your left wing team.

You're trying to say Ty@50 is your sock, too? I thought it was Hank.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're trying to say Ty@50 is your sock, too? I thought it was Hank.

If I was Ty@50 the post would have had "know" in place of "imagine".

[Penske_Account]

The Shiite mullahs who rule Iran and have seized the leadership of the Islamofascist war against us are as dangerous an enemy as America has ever faced……………..their war aims have never been secret. ……………we have yet to admit that Iran is at war with us, or to seriously consider striking back at her……….[our] old-Europe “allies” join with [our Democrat Party and] our Islamofascist enemies in demonizing our brave soldiers in Iraq, and damning Israel for daring to fight back against unprovoked aggression, pursued with openly genocidal intent.


Hmmmm, interesting article. While I am not Ty@50, I must say I saw this coming from the moment those filthy terroristdogbastards violated our sovereign embassy territory. Even as a near-virginal youth I understood the historical imperative upon us to take them out. Unfortunately Carter had more lust in his heart than he did balls in his tighty-whities.

As it stands now, I am willing to be the first member of this board (unless someone else has already done it) to come out in favour of a nuclear preemptory strike to shut these goons up once and for all, although I would also be in favour of Israel being our proxy for the delivery, if they are willing, or if not I am down with us doing the deed.

Who's with me and the future of our nation, world freedom and Israel?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
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.

And when you ltwist facts by conveniently leaving out the preceding words "Great Britain has learned that..." which, in light of still unrefuted British intelligence and later confirmed by Lord Butler's report, makes Bush's statement true, is this also akin to lying?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ha, still nothing to refute that ole uncle Corliss was a socialist, commie sympathiser and the uncle of Red Neddy, the interweb hacker?

Like I said -- I would never challenge Wikipedia. Nor, of course, the notion that everyone believes what their uncles believe (or believed 75 years ago).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And when you ltwist facts by conveniently leaving out the preceding words "Great Britain has learned that..." which, in light of still unrefuted British intelligence and later confirmed by Lord Butler's report, makes Bush's statement true, is this also akin to lying?

No that is more than "akin", that's actually bold-faced lying, which can also be fully diffferentiated from the good faith analysis and subjective interpretative conclusions that the Bush admin came to on the yellow cake issue (as well as the WMD issue).

Just to be clear in our examples, another example of bold-faced lying was when Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky, when, in fact, he had. Sad tragedy is that this type of opportunistic , self-serving lying at the expense of our national community, was the example that Clinton set for impressionable kids like Ty, who, now manifest the bad behaviours of their leaders (probably not unlike how Neddy Lamont may have socialistic and commie sympathising traits, like his uncle Corliss).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Every time I get to the part about proving something with Little Green Footballs, I start convulsing -- sorry, but I just can't get through this post. The question is, why do you hate America? Why do you insist on spreading malicious lies? Can't we all just get along?

what you don't seem to get is this: 50 years from now either LGF or, DU-now a division of al Jazeeram will be the country's official news source. i pray to the holy Jesus lgf is not underground at that time and so should you.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Like I said -- I would never challenge Wikipedia. Nor, of course, the notion that everyone believes what their uncles believe (or believed 75 years ago).

It's not 75 years ago, his uncle died in 1995 (as late as 1991 he was supporting Saddam Hussein in his use of WMDs and wars of aggression and attempting to subvert the international communities effourts to maintain freedom for the peoples of Kuwait). 1995 was 11 years ago on my calendar. I am still influenced by people and ideas that I encountered 11 years ago, as I bet you are.

Are you trying to lie? If so, why?

[Penske_Account]

As an aside to our current discussion, the below is a provocative piece from the Australian, Australia's only broadsheet newspaper, whatever the hell that means. Given that Australia is not only a staunch friend of the United States, but also a member of the Coalition of the Willing, and an ally in the Global War on Terrorism, I enjoy to keeping up on their world perspective as we march lockstep towards a better day when Freedom and Democracy are realised for all of the world's peoples and the scourge of radical islamic terrorism is neutered.


In her book The New Anti-Semitism (2005), American feminist academic Phyllis Chesler writes: "The American and European Left have made a marriage in hell with their Islamic counterparts. The same Left that has still never expressed any guilt over its devotion to communist dictators who murdered millions of their own people in the service of a Great Idea has now finally, fatefully, joined the world jihadic chorus in calling for the end to racist Zionism and to the Jewish apartheid state."

Within a few years of its foundation, Israel had broken the first commandment of the Left's ideology: "Thou shalt not succeed." Success is anathema to the Left because it puts an end to victimhood; without victims the Left has no reason to exist.

I wonder if Quiggan agrees.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account


Within a few years of its foundation, Israel had broken the first commandment of the Left's ideology: "Thou shalt not succeed." Success is anathema to the Left because it puts an end to victimhood; without victims the Left has no reason to exist. [/b][/i]

I wonder if Quiggan agrees.

Revered ME scholar and Professor Emeritus at Princetom, Bernard Lewis, has more bad news for us today in the wSJ re: our Islamic friends and their plans for nuclear war starting on August 22.......

direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today,

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

I feel even more comfortable supporting a joint US-Israeli mission to preemptively nuke Iran, if and as needed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And when you ltwist facts by conveniently leaving out the preceding words "Great Britain has learned that..." which, in light of still unrefuted British intelligence and later confirmed by Lord Butler's report, makes Bush's statement true, is this also akin to lying?

I was just posing a hypothetical.

Here's another hypothetical. Suppose that the President's speechwriters propose the language I quoted, and his policy people say, "You can't say that -- it's not true." So someone suggests, "well, we know the British got the same bogus report that we did, so why don't we say that 'Great Britain has learned' the other stuff." That gives us some sort of plausible deniability if it comes out that we know it's not true." I would say that that is misleading, akin to lying. I would further submit that if President Clinton had tried a ruse like that in a deposition concerning alleged sexual abuse, you would be ready to convict him for perjury on that basis alone.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what you don't seem to get is this: 50 years from now either LGF or, DU-now a division of al Jazeeram will be the country's official news source. i pray to the holy Jesus lgf is not underground at that time and so should you.

If we elect Democrats from time to time, the country won't have an "official news source."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's not 75 years ago, his uncle died in 1995 (as late as 1991 he was supporting Saddam Hussein in his use of WMDs and wars of aggression and attempting to subvert the international communities effourts to maintain freedom for the peoples of Kuwait). 1995 was 11 years ago on my calendar. I am still influenced by people and ideas that I encountered 11 years ago, as I bet you are.

Are you trying to lie? If so, why?

According to you (and Wikipedia), Lamont's uncle was sympthetic to the communists in the 1930s -- 75 years ago -- and publicly disavowed those views in the 1950s.

According to you, the uncle's renounced sympathies, held 75 years ago, make the nephew a commie sympathizer.

So, I'm not trying to lie -- I'm doing something even worse, I think, which is relying on you.


Enough on this silliness.