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.

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.