Jim Frye spams in a number of groups and is never able to answer any question put to him
I think he thinks he can get away with that because he is so perty On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > Dick, > > You hit the nail on the head, my thoughts exactly. To date, neither Proud > Liberal 7 or Gordon has responded with substance to anything that has been > directed to them, in support of their claims. Moreover, all I see, is them > spewing out hateful rhetoric, that is pretty much non-sensical, but meant > only to inflame. > > Typical far left, socialist-elitist Moonbats, who are ill informed and > haven't a clue about the issues, nor our history. > > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:38 AM, dick thompson > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Zeb, You don't need to bother. ProudLiberal7 is using the "Progressive >> Dictionary" for his terms, You know, the one where up = down, in = out, yes >> = no. That is the only explanation for his verbal diarrhea. I guess he >> feels that if he buries you under his outpourings you won't notice that >> there is no substance there at all, that he really has nothing!! >> >> BTW Gordon Urquhart is doing the same thing. All kinds of verbal spewings >> but he will never respond to a request to prove what he says with anything >> remotely making any kind of sense. >> >> Reminds me of some of the people who respond to other blogs the same way. >> They will keep pouring out the krep, which is what it is, but will never >> answer those who question what they put out there nor can they really prove >> what they say. If the thing they are responding to is so obviously true >> and damaging to the "progressive" viewpoint, then an attempt will be made to >> say "well, your side did it first" or an attempt will be made to change the >> subject totally. Common MO for the "progressives," who should really be >> called "regressives." >> >> >> Zebnick wrote: >> >> Have we been attacking terrorists who are IN Pakistan with drones? >> Answer: Yes we have. That's not a war, kiddies. >> >> >> Dropping bombs and firing missiles that destroy buildings, vehicles >> and some innocent bystanders is not war? What is it? A police action? >> LOL! >> >> On May 17, 8:35 pm, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> Obama ATTACKED AND INVADED PAKISTAN? When did that happen? When did he >> even TALK ABOUT going to war with Pakistan? >> >> Answers: He hasn't done any of that. >> >> Have we been attacking terrorists who are IN Pakistan with drones? >> >> Answer: Yes we have. That's not a war, kiddies. >> >> Oops. >> >> In a message dated 5/17/2010 5:31:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> >> What a curious, and sudden, _reversal_ (http://www.house.gov/pelosi/State >> mentonIraq91202.html) : now we have Democrats claiming to have “inside” >> information that justifies a war, whilst Republicans are skeptical. Well, >> not >> so curious, really, since the Democrats now have a war of their own, the war >> against Pakistan, to defend. >> >> Obama’s Gulf of Tonkin >> A war of their own: Democrats target Pakistan >> by _Justin Raimondo_ (http://original.antiwar.com/author/justin/) , May 17, >> 2010 >> >> The claim by the US government that the Times Square would-be bomber, >> _Faisal Shahzad_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad) , was >> “trained” >> and “directed” by the Pakistani Taliban is looking more bogus by the >> moment. _The latest_ >> (http://www.necn.com/05/14/10/Employer-Suspect-arrested-in-Maine-raid-...) : >> one of at least >> three people arrested in connection with the alleged “plot,” Mohammad Shafiq >> Rahman, hadn’t seen Shahzad in years, and even admitted to his employer that >> he knew the accused. One Larry Adlerstein, who had hired Rahman to do some >> computer work for his art business, told reporters: >> >> “Just a few days ago he had a conversation with Rahman about the attempted >> bombing in New York City [in the course of which] his employee made a >> surprising admission. ‘As a matter of fact’ [said Rahman] ]I know this guy >> accused of trying to bomb Times Square. I haven’t seen him in 8 or 9 years >> but >> I know him.’ >> >> “Adlerstein says Rahman described the suspected bomber, Faisal Shahzad as ‘ >> an undirected person….no political positions, just a drifter.’” >> >> Rahman has been _arrested_ >> (http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineHeadlineNews/tabid/968/ctl/ViewItem/mid...) >> on trumped-up >> immigration charges, but ask yourself: if you were part of a terrorist >> plot, and >> had assisted someone already in custody, would you admit to knowing the >> accused? This is just plain ordinary common sense: but that’s not what >> inspires our intrepid G-men. >> >> In an _attempt_ >> (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gv0gQgNBrtPjYTx4Xu...) >> to follow the money trail, and find – or invent – >> a foreign link, US investigators have spread their net far and wide, >> apparently including any individuals who ever had significant financial >> dealings >> with Shahzad over a ten year period. This has led, so far, to arrests – all >> on immigration charges – in Brookline, and Watertown, _both in >> Massachusetts_ >> (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100516suspects_link...) , >> and one in Maine. There is no >> information coming out of the immigration cops, since they aren’t >> answerable to anyone – and refuse to even confirm the identities of those >> being >> held. The authorities often use vague and constantly-shifting immigration >> laws, >> easily violated by non-lawyers, to wring information out of green card >> holders and non-citizens in general. No need to ship them off to Guantanamo, >> or Bagram – just let _ICE_ (http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman260410.htm) >> deal with them. >> >> Yet as those who know the detainees are coming forward to present _a >> fuller picture_ >> (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/15/de...) , >> it looks like there’s nothing at the >> end of the money trail but the administration’s Taliban conspiracy theory >> asserted as fact. >> >> It took a Republican senator, _Kit Bond_ >> (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTdeCWcpX_vafLRF2J...) , >> to point out the obvious: >> that US Attorney General Eric Holder is “playing games” – political games >> – with the case. The senior Republican on the Senate intelligence >> committee, Bonds averred that he has seen no convincing evidence “so far” of >> Shahzad’s purported link to the Pakistani Taliban. Holder “is only >> interested >> in looking tough on terrorism on TV, since he’s now told the intelligence >> community to skirt the national security law and give only the details he >> wants and when to Congress.” The administration is invoking “national >> security >> ” to shield what it knows about the alleged plot from Congress, while >> _going on television_ >> (http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/09/holders-long-delayed-sunday-tal...) >> announcing the “link” had been >> established. >> >> Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, >> _claims_ >> (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/13/gop.senator.times.square.probe/) >> she has definitive evidence of the Taliban link, but refuses to debate the >> matter with Bond “in public.” What a curious, and sudden, _reversal_ >> (http://www.house.gov/pelosi/StatementonIraq91202.html) : now we have >> Democrats >> claiming to have “inside” information that justifies a war, whilst >> Republicans are skeptical. Well, not so curious, really, since the >> Democrats now >> have a war of their own, the war against Pakistan, to defend. >> >> This war, covert up until _a few months ago_ >> (http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan) , first reared its >> head when Hillary Clinton >> paid a _tempestuous visit_ >> (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/11/01/hillarys-ill-will-tour/) to >> Pakistan and directly accused her hosts of >> sheltering Osama bin Laden. The resulting firestorm marked a new low in >> US-Pakistani relations, and one has trouble believing it was merely a >> random temper >> tantrum on Hillary’s part. You’ll recall that during the presidential >> campaign, Obama openly _declared his intention_ >> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR200...) >> to go into >> Pakistan, given the chance to do so, and it’s entirely unsurprising he’s >> doing >> just that. >> >> First, however, his administration must come up with a rationale, and >> apparently they’ve settled on the _pathetic_ >> (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100506_Faisal_Shahzad_bought_fire...) >> act of a demented “ >> _ lone wolf_ >> (http://www.newser.com/story/88110/gen-petraeus-times-square-bomber-ac...) ” >> – as Gen. David Petraeus characterized Shahzad – >> as being good enough for government work. In short, the Shahzad case is >> Obama’s Gulf of Tonkin incident. >> >> The parallels are striking, and instructive: in both cases, the government >> constructed a completely made up story in order to pursue a preordained >> path to war. Just as _there was no attack_ >> (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M0fIthbvQC8J:sea... >> sberg/e/9781429506953+site:search.barnesandnoble.com+Ellsberg+Sample+Chapter >> &cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) on any US ship in the Tonkin gulf, so there was >> no attempted Taliban plot to blow up Times Square – just another American >> nut who went _postal_ >> (http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/...) . >> And this time, too, the >> media is falling down on the job, refusing to question what increasingly >> looks >> like a crude fabrication. >> >> As for the Pakistanis, they too _believe_ >> (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\12\story_12-5-2010_pg7_33 >> >> <http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C05%5C12%5Cstory_12-5-2010_pg7_33>) >> Shahzad was a lone nut: >> Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN, Hussain Haroon, described him as a “ >> misguided soul” who acted alone. While acknowledging Washington may have >> other >> intelligence, in an interview with CBS News Haroon averred: “All I am saying >> is that the evidence I have points in one direction that it does not have >> the signature of the Taliban. This is not, and I repeat not, a Pakistan >> terror threat.” >> >> The ambassador went on to note Shahzad is not even a Pakistani citizen, >> and he brought up Hillary’s accusation – _reiterated this month_ >> (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7711099/Pakis... >> ow-where-Osama-bin-Laden-hiding-Hillary-Clinton.html) – that his >> government is hiding bin Laden. Haroon and the Pakistanis see the looming >> threat of >> direct and massive US intervention in Pakistan, and are doing everything >> possible to stave it off. Yet the floating of this absurd conspiracy theory >> is a clear signal that the Obama-ites are hell-bent on war. >> >> The irony here is that, as Haroon reminded his American audience, Pakistan >> has captured and handed over to the US more actual terrorists – i.e. top >> al-Qaeda operatives – than _our own FBI_ >> (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/FBI_documents_contradict_Sept._11_C...) , >> or any other law >> enforcement agency anywhere. This is how we thank them – by setting them up >> for an invasion on bogus charges of “harboring” terrorists. >> >> When it comes to reporting the Shahzad case, it’s incredible that the “ >> mainstream” media isn’t challenging the administration’s narrative. Although >> maybe, given the media’s longstanding _infatuation_ >> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMevMJLdtE) with the President, this is >> just a case of love >> being blind. >> >> As it turns out, Shahzad was fingered in a _leak to the media_ >> (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004355-503544.html) even before >> he was >> arrested. This has all the earmarks of a manufactured story, straight out of >> the Bush administration’s neocon-written _play-book_ >> ... >> >> read more » >> >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
