[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
24 Jun
Even Libya’s Qaddafi Knows Obama Lies
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 at 5:56 pm | 10 views
- Share:
K’Daffy knows that Hussein O lies and he also knows he’s Muzzie and an Islamist. Smarter than anyone in the democrat party.
Obvioulsy Qaddafi is a Republican agent and is speading fear and hatred.
How long will it be before B. Hussein Obama accuses McCain of putting Qaddafi up to this?
Righties applauding Qaddafi for mouthing Republican talking points? Strange bedfellows indeed. Be sure you don’t get up from the bed with something contagious, boys.
Oh my DW 5000,,,,
and I don’t say this lightly…
Are you retarded?????
Seriously.. how could you be that stupid….????
bigpapa: Many of us have wondered the same thing for months… DW (stands for?) is clearly stuck on stupid.
Yeah, that would be the same Libya that voluntarily dropped their WMD program when our troops entered Baghdad.
However with Hamas, Chavez, Castro, American socialists and communists, black hardcore radicals, home grown US terrorists free as a bird, and other sundry scumbags actively talking up your guy, I wouldn’t be casting aspersions about “contagion”, DW.
I like Sun Tzu, but always hated “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” part.
al Jazeera posts an interview with Qaddafi about an American Politician supporting Israel and you guys post it here in support of Q and al Jaz?
Man I love this site!
Cent: If you think that by posting this it’s an endorsement of Qdaffy or AlJaz you would be mistaken…. But then, you so often are.
Then what are we soupposed to think Mike? I just think it is telling that you support their position against an American that is in support of Israel. What exactly are you trying to say by posting this?
Look at the title and the highlighted text Cent. That’s whay I am trying to say. I should think it was clear.
And to support your position you invoke a terrorist and al Jazeera.
You could probably dig up some stuff on Kos too dude…
So you don’t get it do you Cent? I’m not surprised. You usually don’t.
No I do get it, tell me which part of this is not true:
And to support your position you invoke a terrorist and al Jazeera.
You quote al Jazeera interviewing a known terrorist to support a position against an American speaking out in support of Israel.
I get it perfectly Mike. I never said that you should not be able to quote al Jazeera or consider a known terrorist responsible for the murder of hundreds of students from my wife’s alma mater or Syracuse as an expert on appropriate middle east politics. If those are sources that you agree with then fine.
You can spin it that way if it makes you feel better.
You would still be WRONG.
Again, nothing new.
again, wrong where?
Cent: AGAIN, you are getting tiresome. How am I promoting Qdaffy by repeating what he said about Obama????
CentFla is running round in circles again…spinning…spinning…spinning…spiraling…round and round.
It is so very obvious that his conclusion is false yet CF continues to chase it.
I predict the use of the word “retarded” or “retard” in 3, 2, 1 ……..
***
The whole point of the original post was to show that even Qadaffi can see Obie, and his parlor games, for what they are.
From thousands of miles away Mu’ammar can see what the empty-headed addle-brained nutroots cannot.
Imagine that.
Mike, you are using a terrorist as a reference to support a position. My position is that doing so is always, always wrong.
If saying that is spin, then I do not know what is NOT spin.
Aye Chi, I have no idea what you think I am wrong about either, but for furture reference I would typically not call someone a name that makes fun of birth defects. But I guess that somehow makes me wrong around here too.
I do not post comments here very often and for certain they typically run counter to the author of a post here, I admit being the contrarian. But dude, I am not going to call for support for any of my positions by using a murderer like Q as a source.
I am out of this one fellas, make sure and claim that I have a birth defect now. That is never inappropriate.
The traditional MikesAmerica dodge when confronted by his own foolishness.
How about BY QUOTING HIM BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH YOUR POSITION?!
Now he’s on your side. We get it. 27 years on the state-sponsored terrorism list just ripened the guy up for getting the big Flopping Aces Seal of Approval.
Too late. It was already whipped out upthread by one of your Righty fellow travelers. Proud indeed.
Oh, wait; I’m sure that there will now be some kind of back and fill that shows why it was okay for bigpapa to use it. My bad.
Dim Wit, you are about as tiresome as Cent. Strike that… You are MORE tiresome. Have you got anything interesting or intelligent to add to the conversation or are you just interested in playing your little game Doc?
Hmmm….
Really?
Are you sure?
Do I have you confused with someone else?
Or are you lying?
***
DW,
I worded my post the way that I did to intentionally elicit the “Oh! Not me” reaction.
Needless to say, I wasn’t disappointed.
Having been here for awhile I know that he has a difficult time constructing coherent thoughts without using that particular word or its variants.
Haha,
Aye Chi, I owe you a beer.. domestic.
Aye Chi, tell me why you are calling me a liar? I said that I typically would not call someone a birth defect. Where did I calim that I never did it? Are you claiming that I am a liar because I said that I would typically not use it? Have you deconstructed this discussion to a level of a syntax argument?
Aye Chi, tell me instead why you are in support of using a terrorist to support your position on an issue? Or just goad to illicit a specific response because you can not in good faith, claim that is a very good idea.
That would be great if you could do that instead.
My original statement in #18:
You replied in #19:
Then, once confronted in #23, you said:
Let me pause for a moment and take this in….
Ah, yes. Mmmmm…
Cinnamon-sweet with a mild after-dinner flavor. Gentle on the palate: Nutty with a just a touch of buttery smoothness.
If you “would typically not” do something, then why was I able to, with just a few clicks of the mouse, locate multiple posts containing multiple instances of what you “would typically not” do?
Yet, you ask “why”?
You had the choice not to ignore that line in post #18.
You chose poorly.
I wouldn’t “typically” allow someone to lure me out onto a ledge where I would be swept away by my own words but, of course, your mileage may vary.
***
As to the original topic, I made my views rather clear in the remainder of post #18.
Here it is again (with emphasis added) so you don’t even have to scroll up:
that’s actually a funny reply chi…
but the fact remains that what is typical is not absolute. Therefore, your calling me a liar is the only untruth of either of our posts.
were you to prove that the times I used that word ( 5 times, three times as a reply to someone else using it ) were typical then you would be right. But since I have been coming here and commenting for years those times would clearly be atypical. And the fact remains despite your hours of research to uncover the times I used it uncovered a hand full of times.
That is not typical.
Incedentlly, if the nutroot comment was for me too it would not take you very long to find many, many more comments where I am in support of John McCain. I just never, ever use a known terrorist’s words to support my positions.
“I just never, ever use a known terrorist’s words to support my positions.”
What a bunch of sanctimonious crap.
We recite the words of Osama bin Laden all the time to prove how our enemies are parroting left wing talking points. I suppose you think that’s a bad idea too?
Thus spake Mike’s America. So mought it be.
Speaking of……
CentFla,
I really am beginning to wonder what sort of cloud of cluelessness you live under.
Five times you say? Did you even click the links to see? Did you count them or is five just a nice round easy to type number for you?
Your total is far higher than that.
Thus your contention that the pattern is atypical is even more ridiculous.
If your use of that word was not typical of your posts then it never would have caught my attention and I invested less than 15 minutes of research to prove it.
Finally, I am well aware of your support of McCain.
Chi wah wah you are still the only liar. You provided six links. I said I used it five times, it was six; and some of those times I used the word in because someone earlier in the thread used it. Why won’t you just let this go? Why are you so wound up about something that I said instead of the topic at hand?
Count your own links, then follow your own links. How is this still cloudy for you?
And no Mike, I do not recall ever using a terrorists words to make me feel better about something I already felt. But the net sleuth will certainly find it if it exists, but I am pretty sure that he will tell you that I have never done that.
Psst….
We’re talking about the total number of times you used the word that you “would typically not” use.
We’re not talking about the number of links. How is this still cloudy for you?
Do try and keep up.
Please tell me are you capable of counting the words?
Let me help. What you’re looking for is the atypical word “retard” or the atypical word “retarded”.
Hint: You’ll need all of your fingers and some of your toes, assuming of course that you have the normal number of each.
Now, off you go.
Sorry, I almost forgot this:
You can find out all sorts of interesting things with a simple Google search.
All sorts of things.
Ahh, I see. You are one of those “depends on what the word IS means”.
gottcha.
You obviously got lost somewhere along the way but that’s OK.
I accomplished what I set out to do.
what ever that was. Be sure and drop me a note when you count every word that I have posted here and let me know what the ration of retarded to every other word is.
We are all very interested in that.
“We are all very interested in that.”
Speak for yourself Cent!