U.S. report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
PUT UP, OR STFU, little boy.

LOL. I guess I should copy and paste the entire SSCI report and then DEMAND that you address every statement in there too.

Just goes to show the depths of your delusion, Hardly.

And again, you lie, distract and deny and call me "deluded" instead of even trying to prove even ONE of the Bushwackos' lies quoted in my post isn't accurate. The reason is obvious... YOU CAN'T! :Q

Until you can, I repeat... PUT UP, OR STFU, little boy.

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

 

[Lemon law]

Basically the TLC argument boils down to his own quote---"Never have you ever provided any hard evidence that Bush lied. What you can't seem to get through your infinitely thick skul is that being wrong about something does not equal lying."

And given the TLC position, I don't think any level of proof would ever rise to the point of TLC changing his mind as he seems infinitely able to invent various catch 22's of thats not a good enough proof for me. When its just not one allegation, its many many many the lead the more reasonable to conclude that no other explanation fits that many facts.

But pardon me TLC, the bulk of the American people now realize pathological lying on the part of GWB&co. is already proved beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt.

If you want to march off in your own direction, do so, but you do it almost alone. And your chance of being later vindicated is so small it almost less than zero.

You have way more than half of the words on this page, and seem to be losing what little credibility you had in the process

At this point, the TLC fantasy seems to be that he is on some sort of a jury here, and that he can somehow hang the jury. When in fact he is an almost lone nut in total denial.

Why should anyone here take you seriously or believe you are credible?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
fyi, Mossadeq was removed in the 50s. btw, there was both anti-monarchy and pro-monarchy support amongst the masses. The shah was not as widely despised as some would try to make everyone believe, and Mossadeq was falling out of public favor due to lack of delivery on his promises (kind of like Ahmadinejad today). That's not to mention the power-play Mossadeq was pulling by overstepping his authority and dissolving Iranian Parliament.

Proxy war through Iraq? I guess you ignore that we also furtively provided support to Iran as well, eh? Or are you actually trying to imply that the US was behind Saddam's invasion of Iran? I wouldn't doubt it. Sounds like the kind of ignorant accusation you'd make.

The downing of the Iranian airliner was a tragic mistake but considering everything that was happening at the time in the Persian Gulf with Iran it wasn't very surpising. Google the case of the USS Samuel B. Roberts because you are probably clueless about all the surrounding circumstances and tensions of that time.

btw, where's your example from the 60s?

What nice, clean, benign descriptions of the crimes we commited against the Iranian people.

Let's see, let's imagine China (or insert country here) overthrew the democractically elected government of the United States in the 1950s and installed a dictator of their choice. Let's also imagine China then sponsored a proxy war between the US and Mexico in 80s... funding, arming, and assisting BOTH sides for the sole reason as to cause maximum drain of both Iraqi and Iranian lives and treasuries (this is, after all, the ONLY reason to support both sides in a conflict). Then, if those two gems of foreign policy weren't enough, China, while parking a battleship just off our coast in international waters, 'accidentally' (they might not view it that way and neither would we) shoots down an American Airlines plane full of American civillians.

If this was our history, how do you think the American people would feel about China?
Would there be fear? Suspicion? Mistrust? Hatred even? Would American citizens expect their nation to take every measure neccessary to ensure our nation doesn't fall vicitm to China again? I know I would. Why would I expect any different from the Iranians?

Oh thats right I'm American, with my own set of world rules. Yeehaw.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not about fear, it's about trust. I don't trust the Islamic nutjobs in charge in Iran. Besides that, the 'You're a fraidy-cat' debate tactic is really elementary school at its core. I see it employed quite often in here too, primarily from those who shy away from aggression when it's required. It's a humorous irony.

LOL, it IS about fear. You don't trust them because you fear them. BUT, you already said above, in this thread, that Iran would not use nukes pre-emptively. So what is it exactly?

I said Iran would not use nukes pre-emptively? Didn't I actually say something to the effect that it would be unlikely they'd use them pre-emptively?

Anyone flat out stating that Iran would not use nukes pre-emptively would be a complete fool.

Nor is my belief about fear anymore than keeping your mouth closed when driving a motorcycle down the higway to keep the bugs out is about fear. I guess one could try to make the argument that someone is afraid to get a bug in their mouth, and there'd probably be some modicum of truth to that argument. But it's not truly 'fear" that motivates that act because even if someone does get a bug in their mouth they can always spit it out.

Who is shying "away from aggression when it's required?"

You mean Iraq? :laugh:

We already know, and many us knew, the invasion of Iraq was not required.

No, I meant Iran, not Iraq. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was required is pure opinion.

We know that OBL and Alzwahiri are no longer in Afghanistan, they are in Pakistan. Now, tell me, who is shying away from going in there to get them, as he promised to do so?

Why don't you ask him? Or would you care to entertain the reason why we don't go ito Pakistan? Instead of always asking questions, how about providing some answers?

As I said already, and which practically all the Iran apologists in here have ignored, WE ARE talking with Iran. I didn't even say that in a roundabout way, I stated it explicitly. I also stated that where Iran is concerned, diplomacy doesn't seem to have any effect without additional pressure.

Sure we are talking to Iran, but not in the manner in which we should be.

Wait. Now you claim we are talking to Iran?

As for doing business with Iran, that's a two-way street. Of course, the west has been burned "doing business" with Iran in the past. People love to cite western interventionism and neglect that it was that same intervention that puled countries like Iran into the modern age and gave them the groundwork for the wealth they have today.

:laugh: You wanna go into a little more detail here?

Who developed Iran's oil production infrastracture? They sure didn't do it themselves. And they still can't keep it going without the west helping them out to this very day. With recent sanctions their oil production has been declining and Iran is not investing in its oil production either.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Basically the TLC argument boils down to his own quote---"Never have you ever provided any hard evidence that Bush lied. What you can't seem to get through your infinitely thick skul is that being wrong about something does not equal lying."

And given the TLC position, I don't think any level of proof would ever rise to the point of TLC changing his mind as he seems infinitely able to invent various catch 22's of thats not a good enough proof for me. When its just not one allegation, its many many many the lead the more reasonable to conclude that no other explanation fits that many facts.

But pardon me TLC, the bulk of the American people now realize pathological lying on the part of GWB&co. is already proved beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt.

If you want to march off in your own direction, do so, but you do it almost alone. And your chance of being later vindicated is so small it almost less than zero.

You have way more than half of the words on this page, and seem to be losing what little credibility you had in the process

At this point, the TLC fantasy seems to be that he is on some sort of a jury here, and that he can somehow hang the jury. When in fact he is an almost lone nut in total denial.

Why should anyone here take you seriously or believe you are credible?

Who the fuck cares who YOU deem credible or not? That idiotic retort lost its own credibility in this place long ago. I've shown you to be wrong more than once in this forum so you're the last one here that should be dictating anything to me about credibility.

My level is proof is simple I want hard evidence of a lie. Want an example of what hard evidence is?

A president points his finger and says "I did not have sex with that woman..."

A stained blue dress shows up.

There's no arguing the fact that Clinton knew he had sex with Lewinsky when he pointed his finger at all of us. The blue dress proved it. It was hard evidence.

Show me the equivalent of the blue dress where Bush is concerned. Listing quote after quote where he was wrong[/B, along with practically every Democrat, during the run-up to the war just means he was wrong. It doesn't make it a lie. The BDSers in here can continue to ignore that simple fact, and Harvey is a prime example of that, but surely you're aware that ignore is the root of ignorant.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
fyi, Mossadeq was removed in the 50s. btw, there was both anti-monarchy and pro-monarchy support amongst the masses. The shah was not as widely despised as some would try to make everyone believe, and Mossadeq was falling out of public favor due to lack of delivery on his promises (kind of like Ahmadinejad today). That's not to mention the power-play Mossadeq was pulling by overstepping his authority and dissolving Iranian Parliament.

Proxy war through Iraq? I guess you ignore that we also furtively provided support to Iran as well, eh? Or are you actually trying to imply that the US was behind Saddam's invasion of Iran? I wouldn't doubt it. Sounds like the kind of ignorant accusation you'd make.

The downing of the Iranian airliner was a tragic mistake but considering everything that was happening at the time in the Persian Gulf with Iran it wasn't very surpising. Google the case of the USS Samuel B. Roberts because you are probably clueless about all the surrounding circumstances and tensions of that time.

btw, where's your example from the 60s?

What nice, clean, benign descriptions of the crimes we commited against the Iranian people.

Let's see, let's imagine China (or insert country here) overthrew the democractically elected government of the United States in the 1950s and installed a dictator of their choice. Let's also imagine China then sponsored a proxy war between the US and Mexico in 80s... funding, arming, and assisting BOTH sides for the sole reason as to cause maximum drain of both Iraqi and Iranian lives and treasuries (this is, after all, the ONLY reason to support both sides in a conflict). Then, if those two gems of foreign policy weren't enough, China, while parking a battleship just off our coast in international waters, 'accidentally' (they might not view it that way and neither would we) shoots down an American Airlines plane full of American civillians.

If this was our history, how do you think the American people would feel about China?
Would there be fear? Suspicion? Mistrust? Hatred even? Would American citizens expect their nation to take every measure neccessary to ensure our nation doesn't fall vicitm to China again? I know I would. Why would I expect any different from the Iranians?

Oh thats right I'm American, with my own set of world rules. Yeehaw.

I don't have any idea who you are and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

We overthrew the government of Iran? Do you even know the facts behind what happened? Apparently not. We helped the Shah depose Mossadeq. We didn't overthrow the government.

Were we behind Iraq's invasion of Iran? No. We didn't even join in until later and it had nothing to do with draining treasuries.

Go get your history from history books instead of loopy left-wing websites making all kinds of rhetorical and hyperbolic claims because you don't appear to have any grasp of the facts whatsoever.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I said Iran would not use nukes pre-emptively? Didn't I actually say something to the effect that it would be unlikely they'd use them pre-emptively?
Anyone flat out stating that Iran would not use nukes pre-emptively would be a complete fool.
Nor is my belief about fear anymore than keeping your mouth closed when driving a motorcycle down the higway to keep the bugs out is about fear. I guess one could try to make the argument that someone is afraid to get a bug in their mouth, and there'd probably be some modicum of truth to that argument. But it's not truly 'fear" that motivates that act because even if someone does get a bug in their mouth they can always spit it out.

Ok, you said you "doubt" Iran would use nukes pre-emptively. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.

And, no, I totally disagree. Anyone who thinks Iran would use nukes pre-emptively is an absolute moron. Yes, I am aware of suicide bombers, but the idea of Iran using nukes against the USA or Israel pre-emptively is just fucking ridiculous, and to even suggest the possibility makes you sound as foolish as a 9/11-inside-job conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, I meant Iran, not Iraq. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was required is pure opinion.

Opinion? You gotta be kidding me.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Why don't you ask him? Or would you care to entertain the reason why we don't go ito Pakistan? Instead of always asking questions, how about providing some answers?

I brought this up because of your consistent apologizing and support of this administration, and because you said too many people are afraid of conflict even when it was "required." I sure would like to know what conflicts you deem "required," and if your opinion of this has changed as many times as the administrations.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wait. Now you claim we are talking to Iran?

Sure we are, but not in the manner in which we should be. How many times do I have to say this?

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Who developed Iran's oil production infrastracture? They sure didn't do it themselves. And they still can't keep it going without the west helping them out to this very day. With recent sanctions their oil production has been declining and Iran is not investing in its oil production either.

And why are there sanctions in the first place? Is this what you define as "talking to Iran?" :roll:

And you have yet to answer one big question. What do you think we should be willing to do to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes if this "diplomacy" and airstrikes don't work? Do you think a full invasion of Iran is worth preventing them from obtaining nukes?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I said Iran would not use nukes pre-emptively? Didn't I actually say something to the effect that it would be unlikely they'd use them pre-emptively?
Anyone flat out stating that Iran would not use nukes pre-emptively would be a complete fool.
Nor is my belief about fear anymore than keeping your mouth closed when driving a motorcycle down the higway to keep the bugs out is about fear. I guess one could try to make the argument that someone is afraid to get a bug in their mouth, and there'd probably be some modicum of truth to that argument. But it's not truly 'fear" that motivates that act because even if someone does get a bug in their mouth they can always spit it out.

Ok, you said you "doubt" Iran would use nukes pre-emptively. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.

And, no, I totally disagree. Anyone who thinks Iran would use nukes pre-emptively is an absolute moron. Yes, I am aware of suicide bombers, but the idea of Iran using nukes against the USA or Israel pre-emptively is just fucking ridiculous, and to even suggest the possibility makes you sound as foolish as a 9/11-inside-job conspiracy theorist.

If Iran had a more moderate government without the hardcore Islamic influence completely ruling over their affiars I would agree with you. Unfortunately I could not rule out Iran using nukes pre-emptively because of that influence.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, I meant Iran, not Iraq. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was required is pure opinion.

Opinion? You gotta be kidding me.

Nope. I'm not kidding. But Iraq really isn't the subject here. There are other threads for discussing that.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Why don't you ask him? Or would you care to entertain the reason why we don't go ito Pakistan? Instead of always asking questions, how about providing some answers?

I brought this up because of your consistent apologizing and support of this administration, and because you said too many people are afraid of conflict even when it was "required." I sure would like to know what conflicts you deem "required," and if your opinion of this has changed as many times as the administrations.

I support what I believe is right. I supported removing Saddam from Kuwait, Kosovo, and Iraq. I didn't support Vietnam and still don't to this day, though I understand the motivation behind it. I also don't support any invasion of Iran because I don't believe it would gain us anything.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wait. Now you claim we are talking to Iran?

Sure we are, but not in the manner in which we should be. How many times do I have to say this?

And in your opinion the manner we should be talking to them is?

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Who developed Iran's oil production infrastracture? They sure didn't do it themselves. And they still can't keep it going without the west helping them out to this very day. With recent sanctions their oil production has been declining and Iran is not investing in its oil production either.

And why are there sanctions in the first place? Is this what you define as "talking to Iran?" :roll:

Why don't you ask the EU or the UN about that? It's not as if it's any sort of unilateral decision on our part.

And you have yet to answer one big question. What do you think we should be willing to do to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes if this "diplomacy" and airstrikes don't work? Do you think a full invasion of Iran is worth preventing them from obtaining nukes?

We haven't reached that hurdle yet so it's an impossible question to answer at this point without knowing the surrounding political dynamics. Things could change drastically by the time that day comes.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We overthrew the government of Iran? Do you even know the facts behind what happened? Apparently not. We helped the Shah depose Mossadeq. We didn't overthrow the government.

So, if China covertly helped the American opposition depose Bush would they have participated in the overthrow of our government? To be fair, it wasn't our original idea (it was the Brits with whom we participated) but we still were involved in the destruction of a democratically elected regime. We, the champions of democracy. 'Operation Ajax' was undertaken because we couldn't allow Iran to nationalize, and take control of, their own oil supplies. We had to make sure American and British multinationals continued to profit.
It's all about the $. It's always all about the $.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Were we behind Iraq's invasion of Iran? No. We didn't even join in until later and it had nothing to do with draining treasuries.

Nowhere did I say we were 'behind' the invasion. Iraq and Iran hated each other enough without our help. We simply saw an opportunity to play both sides off of each other thereby causing as much damage (and yes draining them of resources incl monetary) to these nations as possible to keep them weak and otherwise geopolitically impotent. Again, supporting both sides of a conflict is a classic, millennia old tactic in trying to destroy both sides without getting our hands dirty. It's a scumbag move for a nation which is the supposed champion of international law.

Let me guess? We supported both those nations in that horrible war for the good of the world because we're the protectors of freedom and liberty and the champion of international justice? :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We overthrew the government of Iran? Do you even know the facts behind what happened? Apparently not. We helped the Shah depose Mossadeq. We didn't overthrow the government.

So, if China covertly helped the American opposition depose Bush would they have participated in the overthrow of our government? To be fair, it wasn't our original idea (it was the Brits with whom we participated) but we still were involved in the destruction of a democratically elected regime. We, the champions of democracy. 'Operation Ajax' was undertaken because we couldn't allow Iran to nationalize, and take control of, their own oil supplies. We had to make sure American and British multinationals continued to profit.
It's all about the $. It's always all about the $.

Mossadeq was trying to destroy a Democratically elected regime as well.

When a country splits politically, like Iran did, other countries will support one side or the other. Iran is familiar with that tactic. They messed in Lebanon using their Syrian puppet for a couple of decades. They are trying to influence Iraq as well via militant support.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Were we behind Iraq's invasion of Iran? No. We didn't even join in until later and it had nothing to do with draining treasuries.

Nowhere did I say we were 'behind' the invasion. Iraq and Iran hated each other enough without our help. We simply saw an opportunity to play both sides off of each other thereby causing as much damage (and yes draining them of resources incl monetary) to these nations as possible to keep them weak and otherwise geopolitically impotent. Again, supporting both sides of a conflict is a classic, millennia old tactic in trying to destroy both sides without getting our hands dirty. It's a scumbag move for a nation which is the supposed champion of international law.

Let me guess? We supported both those nations in that horrible war for the good of the world because we're the protectors of freedom and liberty and the champion of international justice? :roll:

We supported both sides to a stalemate because we didn't want to see either side exert dominance over the ME. Was it dirty? Sure. What were the alternatives though?

It was a choice of the lesser of two evils.

 

[Harvey]

Hey, [/b]TastesLikeChicken[/b] -- I previously posted:

Here it comes, folks... The windup... the pitch... the same old attempted setup...

I and others have posted so much hard evidence of the Bushwhackos' crimes, so often that neocon pimps like you started a campaign to discredit my long, detailed, DOCUMENTED posts by labeling them as "macros."

Then, when I refer to them without the links, you trot out that same tired old bullshit that there is no proof of their crimes.

That's exactly what you did in this thread. In step one, you called me "a complete lunatic" who posts only "innuendo and spun accusations," and you LIED that I have never "provided any hard evidence that Bush lied."

Of course, I and others have posted so many links, so many times, to so many well documented quotes and so much well documented evidence on these forums that your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of murderers and traitors have lied, that any mouse competent child could find them. :Q

Then, when I did repost a list of quotes and links, instead of attempting to address, let alone disprove, EVEN ONE of the quotes, facts or links, you went to step two, attempting to dismiss and divert attention from them by challenging me to read and address EVERY statement in the report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

LOL. I guess I should copy and paste the entire SSCI report and then DEMAND that you address every statement in there too.

Just goes to show the depths of your delusion, Hardly.

Just as predictably, you even sank to the tired old "Clinton did it" cliche:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Of course I could copy and paste all those quotes from the Democrats, and from the Clinton admin, making those very same claims that the Bush admin was making.

In other words, you couldn't disprove EVEN ONE of the quotes or facts I cited so you attempted to divert attention to other subjects, call me "deluded," and point fingers at the bogey man, Bill Clinton, without being able to disprove ANYTHING I said. The reason is obvious... YOU CAN'T! :Q

Funny how the facts and the truth don't change, even when LIARS like you are in full denial.

Until you can, I repeat... PUT UP, OR STFU, little boy.

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

 

[bamacre]

Harvey, what your argument somewhat lacks is the proof that Bush knew he was wrong when he made those statements. And since Bush, as well as the administration overall, do not have a history of lies, and instead a history of honesty and integrity, one can only assume that Bush was simply unknowingly wrong when he made those statements.



Edit: And there really is no sense in arguing with Mr. Tender Loving Care, because his thoughts and ideas are so obviously biased and reached out of fear. The fact alone that he thinks it possible that Iran, a country of roughly 50 million people, would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively against USA or Israel is not only illogical, but proves he's nothing more than a loon.

 

[piasabird]

So lets get this straight the Iranians vamp up their nuclear program and find they can obtain no weapons grade plutonium. Then they shut it down only to start making weapons grade plutonium. How is that shutting down their program? They only closed a door that they can open at any time.

Do you think we are stupid?

If they really wanted to show the world they were serious they would utterly destroy the nuclear weapons facilities. However, they are unwilling to do that so they should not be trusted.

Maybe if they all have nukes they will start killing everyone in the middle east. That could be a good thing. Or it could be then next armegedden.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Harvey, what your argument somewhat lacks is the proof that Bush knew he was wrong when he made those statements. And since Bush, as well as the administration overall, do not have a history of lies, and instead a history of honesty and integrity, one can only assume that Bush was simply unknowingly wrong when he made those statements.

Bush and company had a history of honesty and integrity? Please, please, please quantify this statement!

Was this "history" generated from Bush's admirable service to his country? How about when he was accused of a land grab by the citizens and courts in Arlington, TX? Or maybe it was when his dad's attorney got allegations of insider trading dropped without investigation?

And Cheney....was his history generated from any of his three DUIs? Or how about dealing with Iraq and Iran in spite of US law while CEO of Haliburton?

Or maybe you were referring to Powell's time working on My Lai or Iran/Contra?

Please help me understand your statement so that I can just pretend none of the things that I thought these fine, upstanding, honest and integrity-filled gentlemen did in the past exist.

Edit: Thanks Harvey for the heads up. Sorry Bamacre for not looking back a few posts.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Harvey, what your argument somewhat lacks is the proof that Bush knew he was wrong when he made those statements.

Ah... The force of sarcasm is strong in this young Jedi.

That said, I'm not going to allow him to continue lying and denying and distracting from the truth until he can disprove the accuracy of EVEN ONE of the quotes and facts I posted that prove Bush and his criminal gang LIED, and they continue to do so, day by day, minute by minute. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

TLC -- I repeat... PUT UP, OR STFU, little boy.

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

RightIsWrong -- See bamacre's previous posts in the thread. He just forgot to include his < sarcasm > < /sarcasm > tags.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bamacre
Harvey, what your argument somewhat lacks is the proof that Bush knew he was wrong when he made those statements.

Ah... The force of sarcasm is strong in this young Jedi.

That said, I'm not going to allow him to continue lying and denying and distracting from the truth until he can disprove the accuracy of EVEN ONE of the quotes and facts I posted that prove Bush and his criminal gang LIED, and they continue to do so, day by day, minute by minute. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

TLC -- I repeat... PUT UP, OR STFU, little boy.

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

RightIsWrong -- See bamacre's previous posts in the thread. He just forgot to include his < sarcasm > < /sarcasm > tags.

Hyperbolic Harvey still imagines he's provided any sort of proof of his claims.

Acting shill doesn't turn your claims into facts, Hardly. It just makes you an annoying shill.

I'm still waiting you to present the Bush version of the blue dress as hard evidence of your claim. YOUR suspicions, ass-umptions, and paranoia do not make for facts.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hyperbolic Harvey still imagines he's provided any sort of proof of his claims.

Acting shill doesn't turn your claims into facts, Hardly. It just makes you an annoying shill.

I'm still waiting you to present the Bush version of the blue dress as hard evidence of your claim. YOUR suspicions, ass-umptions, and paranoia do not make for facts.

And again, you lie, distract and deny and call me "a shill" instead of even trying to prove EVEN ONE of the Bushwackos' lies quoted in my post isn't accurate. The reason is obvious... YOU CAN'T! :Q

Until you can, I repeat... PUT UP, OR STFU, little boy.

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

I've heard rattlesnake is one thing that TastesLikeChicken. Maybe that explains why you strike out with venomous posts when you can't post any facts. But thanks for another opportunity to avoid carpal tunnel by pasting a "macro" in reply to your repeated LIES.

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

:clock:

< crickets >

 

[Lemon law]

Look at it on the bright side Harvey, at least TLC is kept very busy. And for every word you type, he seems to type two or three.

TLC needs to take a page from Congressman Earl Landgrebe book. Seems ole Earl ending up being the last congressman supporting Nixon and had the following famous words
" My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts." The TLC delusion seems to be, if he can just inconvenience enough electrons with his keyboard, GWB will be vindicated.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Still waiting for that blue dress Harvey. All I see from you yet again is your hyperbole, but no proof.

I imagine I'll b waiting forever for you to produce any real proof that doesn't just involve your own paranoia and anti-Bush bias.

LL, you're welcome to provide that hard evidence as well instead of contributing little more than a butt-pat to Harvey, when you know damn well he doesn't have any solid proof of his claims.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Still waiting for that blue dress Harvey.

The one you're wearing? :shocked:

All I see from you yet again is your hyperbole, but no proof.

Get a seeing eye dog. A lying putz like you couldn't find your own ass with a double helping of beans and a box of matches. Too bad you didn't listen when your mother told you, if you don't stop it, you'll go blind. :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey
[blah, blah, blah

Do you have anything to say regarding the subject of this thread?

Nope?

Thought not.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
[blah, blah, blah

Do you have anything to say regarding the subject of this thread?

Nope?

Thought not.

Now that this thread is over, perhaps you can go brush up on your iranian history?

 

[Jhhnn]

From TLC-

I'm still waiting you to present the Bush version of the blue dress as hard evidence of your claim. YOUR suspicions, ass-umptions, and paranoia do not make for facts.

Too bad that the faithful didn't take that attitude with BushCo when they laid out the rationale for the invasion of Iraq...

It was even flimsier than Harvey's ongoing rant...

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From TLC-

I'm still waiting you to present the Bush version of the blue dress as hard evidence of your claim. YOUR suspicions, ass-umptions, and paranoia do not make for facts.

Too bad that the faithful didn't take that attitude with BushCo when they laid out the rationale for the invasion of Iraq...

It was even flimsier than Harvey's ongoing rant...

Didn't take Hillary as the BushCo faithful, but if you say so. Evidence was fine to her and Bill.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey
[blah, blah, blah

Do you have anything to say regarding the subject of this thread?

Nope?

Thought not.

Now that this thread is over, perhaps you can go brush up on your iranian history?

Why should I do that? You already taught everyone. You know - 60s, 70s, 80s, Mossadeq, proxy war, Iranian airliner. Geez. What else is there to know about Iran after you demonstrated your own vast wealth of knowledge on Iran?