U.S. Attorney Gets 28 months Prison For Aiding terrorist.

[Michael Tee]

<<You'd think, that this forum, that BT has so helped to maintain, and messers Js, Chicky, & Plane help manage, and used to exemplarary form by folks like Prince & the Professor, where we can post ideas, & debate the merits of allegations, is just too difficult a concept for some to adhere to, and instead simply belly-ache that such an accusations are to be taken at face value, because hey, they said so, and there's a web site that says so as well. >>

Actually, sirs, and again I apologize for bringing a little breath of reality into your hysterical fantasizing, in addition to the web-sites that I referred to, I actually DID post the lies that Bush and his cabinet told to the American people, as well as the reasons why they had to be lies and not just honest mistakes.  Those posts also appear to have vanished into your memory hole, because now you are trying to imply that the ONLY support of the "Bush Lied" story that I ever posted was in the form of links to a "Bush lied" Website.  That also, like 99% of everything else you post, is simply untrue.

I don't know who you think you are fooling with all your bullshit, but it ain't me.

[Plane]

<<And with all those neurons firing to produce such a diatribe, not one was used to produce a non refuted Bush lie.  Just more of Tee says so, and that's final.  At least your consistent Tee >>

No, actually, sirs, the "Bush Lied" web-site (one of many) which I gave you in fact DID have numerous well-documented lies told by Bush and members of his cabinet.  But you knew that.  I guess you must have forgotten, huh?   

Resolved , Bush is often accused of Lieing.

Resolved , lots of accusations are just as good as a few proofs?

[sirs]

<<You'd think, that this forum, that BT has so helped to maintain, and messers Js, Chicky, & Plane help manage, and used to exemplarary form by folks like Prince & the Professor, where we can post ideas, & debate the merits of allegations, is just too difficult a concept for some to adhere to, and instead simply belly-ache that such an accusations are to be taken at face value, because hey, they said so, and there's a web site that says so as well. >>

Actually, sirs, and again I apologize for bringing a little breath of reality into your hysterical fantasizing, in addition to the web-sites that I referred to, I actually DID post the lies that Bush and his cabinet told to the American people, as well as the reasons why they had to be lies and not just honest mistakes.  Those posts also appear to have vanished into your memory hole, because now you are trying to imply that the ONLY support of the "Bush Lied" story that I ever posted was in the form of links to a "Bush lied" Website.  That also, like 99% of everything else you post, is simply untrue.  I don't know who you think you are fooling with all your bullshit, but it ain't me.

Actually Tee, your lying, or more so grossly disorting the truth.  Actually Tee, the challenge was to provide 1 lie, not point to a bogus Bush lied web site and say "see, he lied".  Actually Tee, the forum was designed especially for the challenge I've repeatedly given you that you continue to ignore (for the right reasons of course), as your lies would again be shown to be what they are.

And actually Tee, the only one your fooling here is yourself. 

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually Tee, your lying, or more so grossly disorting the truth.>>

No I am not lying or distorting anything.  I actually posted numerous examples of Bush's many lies AND pointed out web sites where they were collected.

<<  Actually Tee, the challenge was to provide 1 lie, not point to a bogus Bush lied web site and say "see, he lied". >>

Well, in that case, I've had multiple successes because I've pointed out quite a few of his lies.  And since the web site that I pointed out to you were quite meticulous in documenting the lies of the "President" and his administration, it could hardly be called a "bogus" web site.  Although I can see where it would be a great irritation to any Bush fan.

<< Actually Tee, the forum was designed especially for the challenge I've repeatedly given you that you continue to ignore (for the right reasons of course), as your lies would again be shown to be what they are.>>

I've ignored the challenge by posting the actual lies AND the web sites where the lies are collected? Yeah, right, sirs.  My "lies" would again be shown to be what they are?  Was "again" your little attempt at humour, or do you honestly believe you've even ONCE demonstrated that anything I said was false?

<<And actually Tee, the only one your fooling here is yourself. >>

That Bush is a liar?  I tell ya, sirs, you're one of the rapidly dwindling few in America that believe otherwise.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, I might add.  So I guess what you're telling me is that somebody else fooled all those other folks, while I fooled nobody?  You're saying that whereas others are a huge success at fooling the people into believing that poor George lied to them, I myself am a miserable failure at it?  That's a harsh verdict, sirs, but I guess I'll have to live with it.

[sirs]

<<Actually Tee, your lying, or more so grossly disorting the truth.>>

No I am not lying or distorting anything.  I actually posted numerous examples of Bush's many lies AND pointed out web sites where they were collected.

<<  Actually Tee, the challenge was to provide 1 lie, not point to a bogus Bush lied web site and say "see, he lied". >>
Well, in that case, I've had multiple successes because I've pointed out quite a few of his lies. 

That's strange, I've looked thru-out this thread, and one is no where to be found.  I've looked at several other threads, and again no where is one to be found.  Much like your current MO, a whole ton of "I said so", with no validity behind it.  You know what I did find?  A whole ton of "Bush lied" claims, and the ever so infamous innuendo of how obvious it is that he lied.  Perfect forum right here for you to stand up and say something along the lines of:
"Ok, you RW Bush loving idiot.  He lied about X, and this is how he lied about X.  Now, refute that"

Even that wouldn't have taken any more neurons to process than your "nah" to the challange you were given.  But no, it's just not possible is it.  Can't be having debate in a debate forum.  Need to claim victory, insult the opponent, and hit enter.  You're getting fairly good at the tactic, though it remains as meritless as the rest of your diatribes.  Pity

[Plane]

Oh good greif.

What is that website again?

[larry]

Sirs, Bush told lie after lie for six years. But rather than debate with a closed mind, I will say just this. Bush was wrong and even Bush himself has confess to that.

[sirs]

Sirs, Bush told lie after lie for six years. But rather than debate with a closed mind, I will say just this. Bush was wrong and even Bush himself has confess to that.

ROFL    Priceless

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh good greif.

<<What is that website again>>

It isn't one website, there's dozens of them.  I can't even remember which particular ones I posted, there are so many and they all refer more or less to the same pack of lies.  Just go to Google and search Bush Lied Lies and you will come up with thousands of sites devoted to his lies.  The better ones are near the top of the search and have titles like Bush Lies or 100 Bush Lies.  The really big lie, of course, is the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Saddam Failed to Account/Saddam Kicked Out the Inspectors/The Need to Act Now is Urgen/Can't Wait Longer lie or part or parts of it, and then there's lots of smaller lies and some of the sites also have the big pre-Presidential lie to SEC investigators about Bush's insider trading (lying to the SEC being the same offence for which Martha Stewart did jail time.)

[Amianthus]

Just go to Google and search Bush Lied Lies and you will come up with thousands of sites devoted to his lies.

[Plane]

<<Oh good greif.

<<What is that website again>>

It isn't one website, there's dozens of them.  I can't even remember which particular ones I posted, there are so many and they all refer more or less to the same pack of lies.  Just go to Google and search Bush Lied Lies and you will come up with thousands of sites devoted to his lies.  The better ones are near the top of the search and have titles like Bush Lies or 100 Bush Lies.  The really big lie, of course, is the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Saddam Failed to Account/Saddam Kicked Out the Inspectors/The Need to Act Now is Urgen/Can't Wait Longer lie or part or parts of it, and then there's lots of smaller lies and some of the sites also have the big pre-Presidential lie to SEC investigators about Bush's insider trading (lying to the SEC being the same offence for which Martha Stewart did jail time.)

All right , will this web site do?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/bush-m20.shtml

Lie No. 2: “For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.”

The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with “no-fly” zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA’s aim was to spy on Iraq’s top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.



Elesewhere on our own website this was posted;

"PajamasMedia: The Lancet study uses a baseline mortality rate (the rate during Saddam years) of 5.5/1000 – almost half of the mortality rate of Europe. The mortality rate in the EU is 10.10/1000. Given Europe’s excellent health care, public health infrastructure and, lack of war in the past 60 years, how is it possible that Iraq’s baseline is half that of the EU? Are you simply relying on pre-war publications or was the baseline itself generated by interviews with random clusters?"

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


Ok so , if you beleive one must you disbeleive the other?
I think I see the Socialist website claiming that Bush was likeing about the deaths caused by the sanctions , but the Doctor and Pajamas establish that the death rate in Iraq was not so bad during the sanctions at all.

This web site has nineteen more "lies" it is complaining about , but their credibility is blasted with one careless lie in accuseing Bush with thinhgs that are not so, why adress any other on their list when they have thrown their credibility away on one?

[sirs]

 

[Michael Tee]

I understand the first part of your post, plane, but not the second.

The first part plainly exposes one of Bush's many lies.  The "patient and honourable" U.S. approach, which actually killed a million Iraqis, half of them children due to embargo.

The second part seems to be a complaint aimed at the baseline study "of the Saddam years" on which the million Iraqi deaths were calculated.  But the pre-embargo AND the embargo years were both "Saddam years" so perhaps this baseline was for comparison with the post-Saddam years?

Anyway, your reasoning appears to be:  because the site's credibility is destroyed by this "baseline issue" (which I don't think you quoted properly - - perhaps some paragraphs were lost from your post) therefore you can't believe anything else on that site.

This is like a teacher reasoning: because the kid got one question wrong on the test, all his other answers must be wrong too, so I'll just give him a big fat zero.

If any teacher marked test papers like that, he'd be flat out on his ass in less time than it takes to prepare this post.  (Theoretically, of course: if he belonged to a teachers' union, he'd probably be litigating his dismissal until the school board caved and made him principal.)

Nevertheless, your reasoning and logic are hereby assigned a failing mark of "F minus."  That was one of the worst fucking arguments I've ever seen you come up with, and that's saying something.

[Plane]

I am not surprised you did not understand.


Lets cover it slowly.


It was Saddam that was lieing, the Sanctions did not kill a million Iriquis  , if they had the death rate would have been above the rate at present .

The Math is not hard, a million vs .6 million .


All that is really proven by this is that one or the other is wrong .

Take your pick.

This particular site was from a socialist organisation , I thought you might like them.


In a long list of accusations why is it required that each one be disproven?

You might think it was nessacery that each one be actually proven.

Exausting either way.

This is why I was asking you to pick your favoriate , one or two that can represent the rest.

If you just point to a very long list , I shall insist on disproveing the easyest one on the list , since you have allowed me to choose.

[sirs]

I am not surprised you did not understand.

In a long list of accusations why is it required that each one be disproven?  You might think it was nessacery that each one be actually proven.  Exausting either way.  This is why I was asking you to pick your favoriate , one or two that can represent the rest.  If you just point to a very long list , I shall insist on disproveing the easyest one on the list , since you have allowed me to choose.

Ooooooh, very shrewd and impressive Plane