On Dec 30, 12:34*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article 12ac39d9-d9c4-4800-8865-624c1026f069
@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...







On Dec 28, 5:54*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:59:03 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:22*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve

Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.

So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--

John H

Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?

"Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're precedents.."

I said this:

*"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
*precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."

Your name isn't mentioned. You're making up ****, just like Harry.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.

Seriously, several times here you have asked someone to "prove Global
Warming didn't have anything to do with..." That is asking us to "prove
a negative"... Now, back to my usual poking and prodding you!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know HOW to get this through your head. Try, listen. When
someone STATES that global warming did not cause something, it isn't a
negative to ask that person how he knows for a FACT that global
warming didn't cause something. Do you get it now????? Also, the fact
remains, John is a liar. He tries to do it just EXACTLY like Harry,
like not using a specific name somehow makes it not a lie. Take this
post for example. If John had done this, he'd not use a proper name,
instead he'd say "he". Then when caught in his unhinged bull**** lies,
he'd simply say, I didn't mention "you". You guys are getting so
unhinged and whiney that you are running people off JUST LIKE Harry
did awhile back. Have to **** at it.

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:22:54 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:18:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

The FBI is a corrupt institution. That has been proven any number of times.
Once they got Hoover out of there and actually started following the
laws about appointing directors, that should have changed.
It didn't.

You are right, Janet Reno's FBI was as bad as Hoover's. I suppose it
came from the "Miami Vice" thug mentality she brought with her from
south Florida.

Please...there have been "problems" with the FBI since its inception.
Your attempts to pin them on AG's appointed by Democrats is absurd. Look
up John Connally and John Morris, for example. Both were big-time
corrupt FBI officials during the Reagan-GHW Bush administrations. There
also have been massive examples of evidence tampering and false
testimony on the FBI's part.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:22:54 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:18:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

The FBI is a corrupt institution. That has been proven any number of
times.

Once they got Hoover out of there and actually started following the
laws about appointing directors, that should have changed.

It didn't.

You are right, Janet Reno's FBI was as bad as Hoover's. I suppose it
came from the "Miami Vice" thug mentality she brought with her from
south Florida.


Janet Reno was pretty honest, perhaps overly so. You do remember that she
went after Clinton.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:20:40 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 28, 5:54*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:59:03 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:22*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve

Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.

So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--

John H

Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?

"Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're precedents."

I said this:

*"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
*precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."

Your name isn't mentioned. You're making up ****, just like Harry.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.

I'm a lying asshole because I didn't say what you said I said? Where's
the quote, Loogy? It doesn't exist because I didn't say it.

If, in your mind, your inability to back up your statement makes me a
lying asshole, so be it. Now there's two big name-callers here - Harry
and Loogy.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:43:34 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 30, 12:34*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article 12ac39d9-d9c4-4800-8865-624c1026f069
@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...







On Dec 28, 5:54*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:59:03 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:22*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve

Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.

So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--

John H

Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?

"Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're precedents."

I said this:

*"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
*precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."

Your name isn't mentioned. You're making up ****, just like Harry.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.

Seriously, several times here you have asked someone to "prove Global
Warming didn't have anything to do with..." That is asking us to "prove
a negative"... Now, back to my usual poking and prodding you!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know HOW to get this through your head. Try, listen. When
someone STATES that global warming did not cause something, it isn't a
negative to ask that person how he knows for a FACT that global
warming didn't cause something. Do you get it now????? Also, the fact
remains, John is a liar. He tries to do it just EXACTLY like Harry,
like not using a specific name somehow makes it not a lie. Take this
post for example. If John had done this, he'd not use a proper name,
instead he'd say "he". Then when caught in his unhinged bull**** lies,
he'd simply say, I didn't mention "you". You guys are getting so
unhinged and whiney that you are running people off JUST LIKE Harry
did awhile back. Have to **** at it.

My 'he' refers to Obama. Read for content.

"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."

Now, where are you mentioned? Anywhere? Did you really think the 'he'
referred to you? Are you emulating bad precedents?

You're the one who keeps 'justifying' 'Bama's actions by saying, in
effect, that Bush established a precedent. What horse****.

--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Dec 30, 1:21*pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:20:40 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Dec 28, 5:54 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:59:03 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:22 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve

Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.

So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--

John H

Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?

"Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're precedents."

I said this:

"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."

Your name isn't mentioned. You're making up ****, just like Harry.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.

I'm a lying asshole because I didn't say what you said I said? Where's
the quote, Loogy? It doesn't exist because I didn't say it.

If, in your mind, your inability to back up your statement makes me a
lying asshole, so be it. Now there's two big name-callers here - Harry
and Loogy.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One more time, just to show everyone how ****ing dishonest you are,
you forgot this ending to the above blather:
I think this is the correct loogic

Now who in hell is that referring to? I'm sure, just like Harry you'll
figure out another lie to cover your previous lie, ad nausem, like a
cat trying to cover **** on concrete.

Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:21 pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:20:40 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Dec 28, 5:54 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:59:03 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:22 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...
On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry
wrote:
Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.
Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.
I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.
BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.
I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.
Nothing too good for our tax dollars.
Steve
Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?
Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.
I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?
Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.
I think this is the correct loogic.
"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.
Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.
So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--
John H
Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?
"Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're precedents."
I said this:
"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."
Your name isn't mentioned. You're making up ****, just like Harry.
--
John H
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Churchill- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.
I'm a lying asshole because I didn't say what you said I said? Where's
the quote, Loogy? It doesn't exist because I didn't say it.

If, in your mind, your inability to back up your statement makes me a
lying asshole, so be it. Now there's two big name-callers here - Harry
and Loogy.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One more time, just to show everyone how ****ing dishonest you are,
you forgot this ending to the above blather:
I think this is the correct loogic

Now who in hell is that referring to? I'm sure, just like Harry you'll
figure out another lie to cover your previous lie, ad nausem, like a
cat trying to cover **** on concrete.



The best entertainment on rec.boats is, sadly, the moron loogy arguing
with his fellow morons.

Harry wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:21 pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:20:40 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Dec 28, 5:54 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:59:03 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:22 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...
On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry

wrote:
Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers
managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as
far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.
Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving
the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's
just not done.
I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been
filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.
BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot
of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.
I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.
Nothing too good for our tax dollars.
Steve
Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was
spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the
same time?
Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative.
Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.
I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long
before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking
about?
Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now.
Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.
I think this is the correct loogic.
"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.
Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone
uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the
first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking
Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted
text -
- Show quoted text -
Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative.
If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the
cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a
negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.
So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--
John H
Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?
"Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're
precedents."
I said this:
"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."
Your name isn't mentioned. You're making up ****, just like Harry.
--
John H
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Churchill- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.
I'm a lying asshole because I didn't say what you said I said? Where's
the quote, Loogy? It doesn't exist because I didn't say it.

If, in your mind, your inability to back up your statement makes me a
lying asshole, so be it. Now there's two big name-callers here - Harry
and Loogy.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One more time, just to show everyone how ****ing dishonest you are,
you forgot this ending to the above blather:
I think this is the correct loogic

Now who in hell is that referring to? I'm sure, just like Harry you'll
figure out another lie to cover your previous lie, ad nausem, like a
cat trying to cover **** on concrete.



The best entertainment on rec.boats is, sadly, the moron loogy arguing
with his fellow morons.


i am making a serious effort to improve the tone of my posts. would
anyone consider this post 'snotty'?

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:22:54 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:18:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

The FBI is a corrupt institution. That has been proven any number of
times.
Once they got Hoover out of there and actually started following the
laws about appointing directors, that should have changed.
It didn't.
You are right, Janet Reno's FBI was as bad as Hoover's. I suppose it
came from the "Miami Vice" thug mentality she brought with her from
south Florida.


Janet Reno was pretty honest, perhaps overly so. You do remember that she
went after Clinton.



i must admit I don't recall. What was she after?

On Dec 30, 1:35*pm, Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:21*pm, John H wrote:





On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:20:40 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 5:54 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:59:03 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:22 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve

Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.

So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--

John H

Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?

"Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're precedents."

I said this:

"Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is
doing it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate."

Your name isn't mentioned. You're making up ****, just like Harry.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm done. You are a lying sack of ****. I don't like liars. You were
talking about ME, and everyone here knows that. Have a nice life,
lying asshole.

I'm a lying asshole because I didn't say what you said I said? Where's
the quote, Loogy? It doesn't exist because I didn't say it.

If, in your mind, your inability to back up your statement makes me a
lying asshole, so be it. Now there's two big name-callers here - Harry
and Loogy.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One more time, just to show everyone how ****ing dishonest you are,
you forgot this ending to the above blather:
*I think this is the correct loogic

Now who in hell is that referring to? I'm sure, just like Harry you'll
figure out another lie to cover your previous lie, ad nausem, like a
cat trying to cover **** on concrete.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I am the one who coined "loogic", or at least made it main
stream. It is by defintion an ability to use tangent thinking to bring
a debate to an absured level of confusion... Either way, I am just
pullin' your chain;p)