On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:06:20 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:

On Sep 22, 7:29*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:56:23 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:13*am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:29:51 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:37*pm, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:15:36 -0700, almostcutmyhairtoday wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:32*pm, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:37:56 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:13Â*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

How much of your wages are you going to contribute to his
social programs?

None, but that, too, is irrelevant to the qualifications, or
lack of, of Sarah Palin.

You asked for a cite, little squirrel, and here it is.

What are you babbling about now? *I "asked for a cite"? *Where
do you see a request in this thread?

This is the cite you've asked for. *If you don't remember when
or where you asked for such a cite, that's your problem.

You're making **** up again, just like your twisted subject line.

Anyway, good luck with your tax evasion program.

You are a pathological liar:

Little squirrel, you're the one who said none of his wages will go
to Barack's social programs.

You're making **** up again. *You claimed that I asked for a cite. *

That's another lie.

You're boring.

--
Regards, Curly

Sorry little squirrel, but it's all on google. *Now be a good little
squirrel and go dig up your nuts.

The thread is here, where did I ask you for a cite? *Show us the request
that launched your distraction. *You cannot, it doesn't exist, just like
most of the fantasies pouring out of your (virtual) mouth.

It exists.

You're lying again.

I choose not to play your squirrelly little rodent games.

You cannot substantiate your lie so you devolve into insults.

"Other indicators: 1) Rage attacks after they realize you're questioning
their lies. 2) Distraction techniques, e.g. hanging up the phone when you
catch them in lie, playing word games, or even just running out of the
room. After using the distraction technique, or rage attack, or sometimes
both, they will pretend that nothing ever happened. They re-write history,
so it never did happen in their minds. Normal people do it too, but these
people take it to the extreme."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_yo...hological_liar

Even if your nose lights up, Santa won't let you to chew on his
reindeer's nuts.

See above.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:11:05 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:43*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:29:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:50:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 20, 7:24*am, Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:58:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:16*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:41:14 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
Do you really look forward to putting the United States in the
hands of a housewife without foreign exposure? *

Better than putting it in the hands of a foreigner.

Another lie, irrelevant, and the old "lesser of two evils"
argument that got us in this mess to begin with.

Clinton was not the lesser of two evils, he was the "I voted for an
independant and we got a liberal."

* Clinton was a moderate conservative. -- Cliff

Cliffie is nuts. *Stay away from squirrelly... he's nutless.

* Clinton was a moderate conservative. * Why did you think he got
elected? Twice? *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton [
His policies, on issues such as the North American Free Trade
Agreement and welfare reform, have been described as "centrist."
Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic
expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a
reported federal surplus. Based on Congressional accounting rules, at
the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.
]
[
Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of
office rating of any President since World War II. ]

That's why the Wackos want to disparage him, he was an economic success
that violated some of their deeply held precepts. *To admit Slick
Willies success would undermine their delusions.

Sometimes we have to admit that our opinions were wrong. *I don't like
Clinton but he did a good job on the economy.

--
Regards, Curly

And sometimes we have to quit saying we are libertarian anarchists and
just accept that we are liberal democrats who will absolutely vote for
Barack Saddam Hussein Osama when the curtain closes.

Why would _you_ vote for Obama? Now I know you're insane.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:35:11 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:09:42 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:13:48 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:16:20 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:55:08 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:48:47 -0700, "Roy Blankenship"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:csadnZztGfh6kknVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthl ink.com...

john wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:19:51 -0700, Gunner
wrote:


On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:40:14 -0400, john
wrote:



Gunner wrote:


On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:34:55 -0400, john
wrote:



Gasoline is selling for three times what it was when
Bush
presumed
office.

Gasoline is going down, does he get credit for that too?

Gummer apparently hasn't bought any gasoline in the past
week or
so.



Odd...Last week it was $3.71, at the end of the week, it was
$3.65, this morning I filled up at $3.59

Doesnt seem like much of a rise, least not on this planet






You aint seen nuffing yet.

Yet the claim was the price of fuel has skyrocketed in the last
month, when its easily demonstrated its been falling.

Sounds like the claiment is an outright liar, no?

Gunner


No. Gasoline has gone from 3.59 to 4.09 in the past two weeks
here. Sounds like you think that your little corner of the world
is the whole world.


It went from $4.07 to $3.56 around here in North Central Florida.

North Central Florida.

That explains your other dumbass post.




"Your little corner"

exquisite.....


You're the one who claims to live in a small desert town.

Didn't he claim to have plonked you, too?

Several times. Here lately, he's been piggybacking on replies to my posts
claiming not to be able to see the answers.

Yeah, I noticed that he did that to me also until a couple of days ago and
he slipped responding directly. Bizarre that we have so many
pathologoical liars here for many of their lies are completely unnecessary.

It's gotten to the point that after visiting misc.survivalism I have to
wash my hands...

I've kill filed all of them except gunner. It makes for much easier
reading. I may take them out after the first week in November just to
watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth. You know, for the
entertainment value.

Then again, it's been so pleasant that I may just leave them there.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:15:58 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

[Default] I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Gunner reported Elvis on Fri, 19 Sep
2008 08:19:51 -0700 in misc.survivalism :
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:40:14 -0400, john
wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:34:55 -0400, john
wrote:
Gasoline is selling for three times what it was when Bush presumed
office.

Gasoline is going down, does he get credit for that too?

Gummer apparently hasn't bought any gasoline in the past week or so.

Odd...Last week it was $3.71, at the end of the week, it was $3.65,
this morning I filled up at $3.59

Doesnt seem like much of a rise, least not on this planet

You aint seen nuffing yet.

Yet the claim was the price of fuel has skyrocketed in the last month,
when its easily demonstrated its been falling.

Sounds like the claiment is an outright liar, no?


He could have a 180 perceptive /reality phase shift.

Or be an insane knight, if you've read any Smuyllyan.

You know, I'd kill file you too if I didn't seriously think that you
are a gunner sock puppet.

On Sep 22, 11:51*pm, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:06:20 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 22, 7:29*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:56:23 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:13*am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:29:51 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:37*pm, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:15:36 -0700, almostcutmyhairtoday wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:32*pm, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:37:56 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:13Â*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

How much of your wages are you going to contribute to his
social programs?

None, but that, too, is irrelevant to the qualifications, or
lack of, of Sarah Palin.

You asked for a cite, little squirrel, and here it is.

What are you babbling about now? *I "asked for a cite"? *Where
do you see a request in this thread?

This is the cite you've asked for. *If you don't remember when
or where you asked for such a cite, that's your problem.

You're making **** up again, just like your twisted subject line..

Anyway, good luck with your tax evasion program.

You are a pathological liar:

Little squirrel, you're the one who said none of his wages will go
to Barack's social programs.

You're making **** up again. *You claimed that I asked for a cite.. *

That's another lie.

You're boring.

--
Regards, Curly

Sorry little squirrel, but it's all on google. *Now be a good little
squirrel and go dig up your nuts.

The thread is here, where did I ask you for a cite? *Show us the request
that launched your distraction. *You cannot, it doesn't exist, just like
most of the fantasies pouring out of your (virtual) mouth.

It exists.

You're lying again.

*I choose not to play your squirrelly little rodent games.

You cannot substantiate your lie so you devolve into insults.

Liar. I call you on your lies when you lie. There is no need to cite
your previous posting because that's what I'm replying to.

Sheesh! No wonder Argentina has coups and revolutions so
frequently...

"Other indicators: 1) Rage attacks after they realize you're questioning
their lies. 2) Distraction techniques, e.g. hanging up the phone when you
catch them in lie, playing word games, or even just running out of the
room. After using the distraction technique, or rage attack, or sometimes
both, they will pretend that nothing ever happened. They re-write history,
so it never did happen in their minds. Normal people do it too, but these
people take it to the extreme."http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathologic...

Lies by diversion.

Even if your nose lights up, Santa won't let you to chew on his
reindeer's nuts.

See above.

--
Regards, Curly

Troll.

On Sep 22, 11:52*pm, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:11:05 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:43*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:29:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:50:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 20, 7:24*am, Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:58:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:16*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:41:14 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
Do you really look forward to putting the United States in the
hands of a housewife without foreign exposure? *

Better than putting it in the hands of a foreigner.

Another lie, irrelevant, and the old "lesser of two evils"
argument that got us in this mess to begin with.

Clinton was not the lesser of two evils, he was the "I voted for an
independant and we got a liberal."

* Clinton was a moderate conservative. -- Cliff

Cliffie is nuts. *Stay away from squirrelly... he's nutless.

* Clinton was a moderate conservative. * Why did you think he got
elected? Twice? *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton[
His policies, on issues such as the North American Free Trade
Agreement and welfare reform, have been described as "centrist."
Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic
expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a
reported federal surplus. Based on Congressional accounting rules, at
the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion..
]
[
Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of
office rating of any President since World War II. ]

That's why the Wackos want to disparage him, he was an economic success
that violated some of their deeply held precepts. *To admit Slick
Willies success would undermine their delusions.

Sometimes we have to admit that our opinions were wrong. *I don't like
Clinton but he did a good job on the economy.

--
Regards, Curly

And sometimes we have to quit saying we are libertarian anarchists and
just accept that we are liberal democrats who will absolutely vote for
Barack Saddam Hussein Osama when the curtain closes.

Why would _you_ vote for Obama? *Now I know you're insane.

I can't think of a single reason to vote for Obama, but then, I'm not
going to vote for him.

You on the other hand offer up Obama at every turn all the while
saying you are a libertarian anarchist who is going to vote for either
a Republican from Texas or a Republican from Georgia. You should
hear yourself from the other side...you just don't make any sense at
all.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:47:22 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:

On Sep 22, 11:51Â*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:06:20 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 22, 7:29Â*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:56:23 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:13Â*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:29:51 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:37Â*pm, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:15:36 -0700, almostcutmyhairtoday wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:32Â*pm, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:37:56 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese
wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:13ÂÂ*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

How much of your wages are you going to contribute to
his social programs?

None, but that, too, is irrelevant to the qualifications,
or lack of, of Sarah Palin.

You asked for a cite, little squirrel, and here it is.

What are you babbling about now? Â*I "asked for a cite"?
*Where do you see a request in this thread?

This is the cite you've asked for. Â*If you don't remember
when or where you asked for such a cite, that's your problem.

You're making **** up again, just like your twisted subject
line.

Anyway, good luck with your tax evasion program.

You are a pathological liar:

Little squirrel, you're the one who said none of his wages will
go to Barack's social programs.

You're making **** up again. Â*You claimed that I asked for a cite.
Â*

That's another lie.

You're boring.

--
Regards, Curly

Sorry little squirrel, but it's all on google. Â*Now be a good
little squirrel and go dig up your nuts.

The thread is here, where did I ask you for a cite? Â*Show us the
request that launched your distraction. Â*You cannot, it doesn't
exist, just like most of the fantasies pouring out of your (virtual)
mouth.

It exists.

You're lying again.

Â*I choose not to play your squirrelly little rodent games.

You cannot substantiate your lie so you devolve into insults.

Liar. I call you on your lies when you lie. There is no need to cite
your previous posting because that's what I'm replying to.

You haven't, and cannot, show where I asked for a cite in this thread. It
doesn't exist. You'r lying. Again. If it were an accident or misspeak
then you'd admit such and move on however your choice has been to stone
wall and throw more lies to defend the original lie. Dumb move.

Sheesh! No wonder Argentina has coups and revolutions so frequently...

"Other indicators: 1) Rage attacks after they realize you're
questioning their lies. 2) Distraction techniques, e.g. hanging up the
phone when you catch them in lie, playing word games, or even just
running out of the room. After using the distraction technique, or rage
attack, or sometimes both, they will pretend that nothing ever
happened. They re-write history, so it never did happen in their minds.
Normal people do it too, but these people take it to the
extreme."http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathologic...

Lies by diversion.

Easy to prove, show us where I requested a cite in this thread. You
cannot so you lie more to mask the original lie. Really dumb move.

Even if your nose lights up, Santa won't let you to chew on his
reindeer's nuts.

See above.

--
Regards, Curly

Troll.

Ah, when you get called out on your lies we're trolls but when you throw
lies into the conversation it's not trolling. You are a hypocrite too.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:01:00 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:

On Sep 22, 11:52*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:11:05 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:43*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:29:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:50:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 20, 7:24*am, Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:58:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:16*am, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:41:14 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
Do you really look forward to putting the United States in
the hands of a housewife without foreign exposure? *

Better than putting it in the hands of a foreigner.

Another lie, irrelevant, and the old "lesser of two evils"
argument that got us in this mess to begin with.

Clinton was not the lesser of two evils, he was the "I voted for
an independant and we got a liberal."

* Clinton was a moderate conservative. -- Cliff

Cliffie is nuts. *Stay away from squirrelly... he's nutless.

* Clinton was a moderate conservative. * Why did you think he got
elected? Twice? *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton[ His
policies, on issues such as the North American Free Trade Agreement
and welfare reform, have been described as "centrist." Clinton
presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion
in American history, which included a balanced budget and a
reported federal surplus. Based on Congressional accounting rules,
at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559
billion. ]
[
Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end
of office rating of any President since World War II. ]

That's why the Wackos want to disparage him, he was an economic
success that violated some of their deeply held precepts. *To admit
Slick Willies success would undermine their delusions.

Sometimes we have to admit that our opinions were wrong. *I don't
like Clinton but he did a good job on the economy.

--
Regards, Curly

And sometimes we have to quit saying we are libertarian anarchists and
just accept that we are liberal democrats who will absolutely vote for
Barack Saddam Hussein Osama when the curtain closes.

Why would _you_ vote for Obama? *Now I know you're insane.

I can't think of a single reason to vote for Obama, but then, I'm not
going to vote for him.

Then why the false paragraph above?

You on the other hand offer up Obama at every turn all the while saying
you are a libertarian anarchist who is going to vote for either a
Republican from Texas or a Republican from Georgia. You should hear
yourself from the other side...you just don't make any sense at all.

You threw Clinton into the conversation to distract, now Obama. The
thread is "I'm voting Republican because..." Lie by misdirection.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-