Another lie from HH&C
 

On Sep 21, 5:03*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:37:42 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon

wrote:
"From Andrea Broadbent "The Truth about Truman": *Some main qualities linked with pathological
liars include dysfunctional family origin, family lying patterns,
anomalies of sexual life, frequent substance abuse, and a great capacity
for language."

Wow.
--
John H.

Getting caught up in all this OT political crap Johnh?

Yet another attempt by you to improve this NG............

Another lie from HH&C
 

JimH wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:03 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:37:42 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon

wrote:
"From Andrea Broadbent "The Truth about Truman": Some main qualities linked with pathological
liars include dysfunctional family origin, family lying patterns,
anomalies of sexual life, frequent substance abuse, and a great capacity
for language."
Wow.
--
John H.

Getting caught up in all this OT political crap Johnh?

Yet another attempt by you to improve this NG............


You don't believe there is a political thought in Herring's peabrain
that wasn't sucked up from Rush Limbaugh, do you?

--
http://tinyurl.com/4q88t6

Another lie from HH&C
 

On Sep 21, 5:26*pm, A Real Boater wrote:
JimH wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:03 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:37:42 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon

wrote:
"From Andrea Broadbent "The Truth about Truman": *Some main qualities linked with pathological
liars include dysfunctional family origin, family lying patterns,
anomalies of sexual life, frequent substance abuse, and a great capacity
for language."
Wow.
--
John H.

Getting caught up in all this OT political crap JohnH?

Yet another attempt by you to improve this NG............

You don't believe there is a political thought in Herring's peabrain
that wasn't sucked up from Rush Limbaugh, do you?

--http://tinyurl.com/4q88t6

I am not going to get into that sort of BS with you. Although I have
tripped up a couple of times I have really tried to stay away from
this OT political nonsense here.

My comment was based on the fact that General Herring continues to
preach to his troops that he wants rec.boats cleaned up.......yet we
have him ****ing of Tom so bad that Tom leaves and we have Herring
contributing to a political OT post.

He is a hypocrite...............and a whiner.

I do have to give him credit though as he knows quite a bit about wide
loads.

Our economy...
 

[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.


pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
The two oldest cliches in the book are "The Good Old Days were
better." and "After all, these are Modern TImes."

Another HH&C lie
 

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




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

Another HH&C lie
 

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.

Another HH&C lie
 

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.

You make **** up. Oh, and you lie.

"I have found a few differences in pathological liar and a "slime ball"
liar. Pathological liars cannot tell that they are lying they actually
believe the lie as soon as it comes out of their mouth. They lie about
unimportant things that don't really matter to anyone. This can be caused
by mental defect but isn't always. Slime-ball liars lie about things that
make them look better or embellish to get attention. They also lie to keep
their butts out of trouble and to get what they want."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_yo...hological_liar

--
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=-

The little squirrel wants to chew on Rudolph's nuts
 

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

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

I'm voting republican because...
 

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.

Little Cowardly Squirrel's failed logic... was: I'm votingrepublican because...
 

On Sep 21, 10:52*am, wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:37*pm, wrote:





On Sep 14, 1:54*pm, wrote:

On Sep 13, 4:01*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:07:16 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:58*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:24:30 -0700, Roy Blankenship wrote:

"greylock" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:16:05 -0500, "Rob Fraser"
FraserRacing"AT"RobFraser.Net wrote:

Well this is cruel but true- If the Republicans do win, She has a kid who
is
retarded so there will technically still be a retard in the White House.

*Does the Vice-President live in the White House in your world?

How interesting !!!

And I wouldn't call it cruel - I'd call it - and you - *assinine.

All the bull**** the neocons have thrown out? Give it a rest.

McCain won't finish his term, and then she WILL be in the White House.

Palin is another
bible-thumping crazymother****er (yeah, I know that's redundant) that
risks our civli liberties.

At least what is left of them.

--
Regards, Curly

Curly, Roy is saying Sarah Palin will be president and you give us
Quayle and Cheney???

Where is your cognitive disconnect? *

I have none, but thanks for asking.

Cheney and Quayle were Vice Presidents of the United States, no? *

Correct.

Cheney and Quayle were one heartbeat away from the Presidency, no? *

Correct.

Cheney and Quayle were horrid examples of what "might have been" if they had ascended the throne, no?

No/Yes. *I'd have preferred Cheney as president. *I don't think about
Quayle much.

And you have changed the parameters of the above dialog. *Neither
Quayle nor Cheney were president nor occupied the White House.

Why doesn't the little squirrel reply?

How does that differ in kind, not detail, from Sarah Palin ascending to
the Presidency when/if McCain is elected and dies?

Perhaps you want her "creature" billeted at the White House kennel?

Do you ever read what it is you are replying to, or do you just unroll
the dem talking points scroll and start posting?

"Phoney Outrage" is the term, you make **** up to get your panties in a
bunch. *Follow the logic, even though that appears difficult in your case.

My underwear are just fine. *As a matter of fact I just got some of
those new Hanes that are quite comfy. *They're probably not available
in Argentina yet.

Neither Quayle nor Cheney have become president. *And Hillary was more
of a VP than Algore.

Nor has Sarah Palin "become" president. *

Correct. *Curly: *"Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney have proven the dangers
of electing an administration with a terrible 2nd in command."

So how does Cheney and Quayle having NOT been president PROVEN your
perceived danger?

Why doesn't the little squirrel reply?

Perhaps parallel thinking is
difficult for you but not the rest of us.

I'm not the one saying that something that didn't happen is PROOF that
Sarah Palin is unfit to be president. *You are.

So why doesn't the little squirrel address his failed logic?

Everyone knows he is so much smarter than me so it should be a simple
matter for him to use "honest dialog" to dispatch me.

Where are you, little squirrel???

Where Oh where has my little squirrel gone, Oh where oh where can he
be?

With his brain cut short and tail cut long so he can tuck it in
between his legs...

The little squirrel wants to chew on Rudolph's nuts -- More Lies and Evasion from HH&C
 

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=-

I'm voting republican because...
 

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=-

Our economy...
 

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.

Our economy...
 

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.

The little squirrel wants to chew on Rudolph's nuts -- More Liesand Evasion from HH&C
 

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.

I'm voting republican because... My rightful name is Curly andI'm a libertarian anarchist...
 

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.

The little squirrel wants to chew on Rudolph's nuts -- More Lies and Evasion from HH&C
 

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=-

I'm voting republican because...
 

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=-