September 25, 2012

"Will Obama Free the Blind Sheik?"

A WSJ op-ed by Michael B. Mukasey, who presided over the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman and sentenced him to life in prison.
Abdel Rahman was convicted in 1995 of participating in a seditious conspiracy that included the [Meir] Kahane murder, the 1993 WTC bombing, and a plot to blow up other landmarks in New York and to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he visited the United Nations....

In 1997, members of Abdel Rahman's organization... murdered more than 60 tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and inserted notes in the body cavities of several victims demanding the Blind Sheik's release. Also in the mid-1990s, Abdel Rahman contrived from jail to issue the fatwa that Osama bin Laden cited as authorization to carry out the 9/11 attacks. The sheik's confinement was on bin Laden's list of grievances meant to justify that atrocity.

... Abdel Rahman has been a totemic figure to Islamists since 1981, when his pronouncements gave a group of Egyptian army officers the spiritual justification for assassinating President Anwar Sadat. The officers were hanged, but Abdel Rahman successfully defended himself at trial by arguing that he had simply been opining on issues of Islamic law and should not face censure for that in a Muslim country.
Mukasey reviews the evidence that the Obama administration is contemplating releasing him, including the "excruciatingly lawyered" sounding statement of officials. For example, Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who, before Congress, asked "whether there is an intention 'at any time to release the Blind Sheikh,'" said, "Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention."

143 comments:

Seeing Red said...

Yet he won't release Pollard......

X said...

they can flee the country together

Freder Frederson said...

No he won't. You are all just being silly . . .again.

If we believed the rumors Ann has pedaled over the last couple months, Palin would have spoken at the convention and Condi Rice would be Mitt's running mate.

AprilApple said...

Obama is also going to grovel and apologize before the anti-democratic creeps and freaks at the UN for the stupid Youtube video that would have remained obscure had it not been for operation scapegoat.

Jay said...

Of course he will.

It will be a "gesture of goodwill to our Muslim friends"

And it will go so swell.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Old nickname: "The Blind Sheik".

New nickname: "The Human Sudetenland".

drozz said...

we should release him if he is determined to be an ally.

which is apparently a legal term of art.

Freder Frederson said...

I wonder if Ann will apologize in a couple months when Rahman dies in U.S. prison.

Actually, I don't wonder at all. I know she won't even mention it or acknowledge that she spread these silly rumors.

Carnifex said...

If Zero is re-elected, he will be "more flexible". A direct quote that no matter how much spin Freddie Freeloader puts on it means he will do the hell, whatever he wants. And if this is Zero under restraint, we're looking at a full blown facist is the WH.

So, Zero will free Cap'n Hooks if he is re-elected. And if he is not, he will free Cap'n Hooks just as a big Eff Eww to the country for spurning his little Kenyan ass.

Either way, Zero is a surrender monkey. Oops, sorry, that was racist. He's a cheese eating surrender primate.

X said...

And if he is not, he will free Cap'n Hooks just as a big Eff Eww to the country for spurning his little Kenyan ass.

pretty much what I expect from The Office of the President-Reject

Andy R. said...

I can't keep up with all the right-wing conspiracy theories this election season.

Carnifex said...

Jees Freeloader, why would a professor of law at Wisconsin apologize for some terrorist dying in prison? Were you born this dumb, or did you have to work at it? How about this...We hold a fucking party every time a terrorist dies!.. You know, like how they do when they kill a bunch of innocent people. 'Course with Zero droning their asses all over the desert we'd have to have at least 4 or 5 a week right? Should we count the innocents Zero kills too? Or are you dumb enough to believe hellfire missiles discriminate their targets?

Marshal said...

Freder Frederson said...
No he won't. You are all just being silly . . .again.

If we believed the rumors Ann has pedaled over the last couple months, Palin would have spoken at the convention and Condi Rice would be Mitt's running mate.


Note how unreasonable you have to be to defend the left. Discussing possibilities has to become peddling rumors, apparently while using the new bike-share program.

I don't think Obama will release him - if nothing else the domestic political impact would be ruinous. But why is he treating it like a serious decision? This legitimizes the demand in the eyes of the nuts and increases the likelihood of future violence to reverse the policy. It should have been dismissed out of hand, as should the complaints about America allowing blasphemy.

furious_a said...

I wonder if Ann will apologize in a couple months when Rahman dies in U.S. prison.

In more civilized countries they send the dearly departed's family a bill for room&board.

Bryan C said...

"I can't keep up with all the right-wing conspiracy theories this election season."

Really? Name one.

McTriumph said...

The release of the "Blind Sheikh" would most likely gone forward till 9/11 the AQ attack in Libya. Most likely it was to be announced at the Obama Morsi meeting scheduled for this week, the meeting has been cancelled for obvious reasons. Now the release will happen after Obama's possible re-election to shore up Morsi's position in Egypt.

Carnifex said...

I'll make it simple Andy...anything that will fuck this country up, Zero will do. It's just that easy. I have no confidence that this administration would do the right thing even by accident, so it must be deliberate. As long as it aggrandizes Zero, that's what you can expect.

PS.

That's pretty much what I expect form any politician, so don't think I am focusing solely on Zero. I'm just as mad at Mittens. For different reasons, but just as mad.

Freder Frederson said...

But why is he treating it like a serious decision?

Who is he? Obama? Provide one shred of evidence that the President is treating it like a serious decision.

Freder Frederson said...

Jees Freeloader, why would a professor of law at Wisconsin apologize for some terrorist dying in prison?

Jees, I want her to apologize for giving any credence to this rumor.

Nonapod said...

If we believed the rumors Ann has pedaled over the last couple months, Palin would have spoken at the convention and Condi Rice would be Mitt's running mate.

Good grief, when did Ann do anything more than speculate about those possibilities? When did she say that those things would definitely happen?

Ann Althouse said...

The former judge, former U.S. Attorney General is reviewing the evidence in the Wall Street Journal and you want to say it's a rumor that shouldn't even be talked about?!

Imagine an equivalent rumor had emerged about George Bush when he was President. You'd have refrained from mentioning it?

What bullshit!

Ann Althouse said...

And let's get back to the topic. I don't think Freder is a troll in the classic sense, but his "rumor" topic is a sidetrack. Don't be sidetracked. He's trying to say don't talk about it. Don't look at it. Obviously, he's trying to defend the President from topics that might hurt him.

Hey, did you hear that Mitt Romney thinks airplanes should have roll-down windows? Now, there's something that ought to grab and hold our attention.

Don't be fooled!

Marshal said...

Provide one shred of evidence that the President is treating it like a serious decision.


The first hint of something fishy came in June, when Hani Nour Eldin, a member of the terrorist group that carried out the Luxor slaughter and who had himself spent 11 years in Egyptian jail on terrorism charges, was granted a visa to come to the United States, where he visited the White House and urged that Abdel Rahman be transferred to Egypt. Members of Congress immediately raised questions about how such allowances were made for a member of a designated terrorist organization.

The assistant secretary of homeland security for legislative affairs, Nelson Peacock, responded in a July letter. It suggested that no warning flags had been raised during the processing of the Eldin visa, but the letter acknowledged that, as a member of a designated terrorist organization, Hani Nour Eldin would have needed a waiver from someone in authority to get a visa.

It's revealing you don't read the articles you deny are true.

Maguro said...

I almost want this to happen so I can watch Freder defend it and say of course Obama did the right thing. Lol.

Andy R. said...

Really? Name one.

Too Fast, Too Furious: Darrell Issa has dabbled in a conspiracy theory.

Fast and Furious Report Destroys Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories

Andy R. said...

Ann loves a good conspiracy theory, as does the right wing idiots in this country who are constantly inventing stories about some nefarious plot by our black muslim president.

What ever happened to that Ann post from a while ago about some secret plan and she wouldn't tell us the details but we would all know about it after it happened? Did she ever explain that?

purplepenquin said...

The sheik's confinement was on bin Laden's list of grievances meant to justify that atrocity.

Didn't Bush cave-in on one of those grievances and ended up removing our military bases from Saudi Arabia?


"Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention."

According to some commentators, that means "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"

ricpic said...

The very real possibility that the Blind Sheik will be released points to the deep penetration of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood. But don't draw that conclusion based on the actions of our State Department, Department of Defense, Justice Department and White House vis-a-vis Islam; draw your conclusion based on Freder's charge of silly paranoia.

cubanbob said...

That the possibility of his being released speaks volumes about the current regime. Under what other president would this even enter as a theoretical possibility? Freder aren't getting tired of being a fluffer for Obama?

Andy R. said...

The very real possibility that the Blind Sheik will be released points to the deep penetration of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Is Bachmann still flogging that conspiracy theory? What's it like living in the magic right-wing conspiracy land where you believe any silly made-up story from a conservative nut job hack?

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
Ann loves a good conspiracy theory, as does the right wing idiots in this country who are constantly inventing stories about some nefarious plot by our black muslim president.


Hysterical.

Hey, remember how you waved away all those "9-11 was an inside job" statements?

You realize that believing Bush was behind 9-11 is relatively mainstream for the left, right?

Jay said...

Too Fast, Too Furious: Darrell Issa has dabbled in a conspiracy theory.

Notice you can not explain or defend what is printed here.

Jay said...

Fast and Furious Report Destroys Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories

Now that is laugh out loud funny.

Of course assuming "reports" are 100% accurate, all inclusive, and uncovered all the facts, are what idiots like you do.

Life is easier that way.

purplepenquin said...

Is Jay a 9/11 truther or is he one of those idiots who assume that "reports" about it are 100% accurate, all inclusive, and uncovered all the facts?

Based on what he has said so far, it has to be one or the other...no?

edutcher said...

He intends to spring 55 Gitmo inmates before the election, so why not make it 56?

Lessee, 27% of 56 is about 15, so we can count on another 15 hits like Benghazi from Choom.

Andy R. said...

Ann loves a good conspiracy theory, as does the right wing idiots in this country who are constantly inventing stories about some nefarious plot by our black muslim president.

So he admits it.


Tank said...

I don't get it.

What's the upside?

Even for Zero.

Jay said...

purplepenquin said...
Is Jay a 9/11 truther or is he one of those idiots who assume that "reports" about it are 100% accurate, all inclusive, and uncovered all the facts?


Hey idiot:

A plane hit the Pentagon.

I know people who saw it.

It is also on video.

You can stop making a complete & utter fool of yourself now.

Jay said...

purplepenquin said...
Is Jay a 9/11 truther or is he one of those idiots who assume that "reports" about it are 100% accurate, all inclusive, and uncovered all the facts?


Hey idiot:

The terrorists who hijacked those planes were with al Qaeda.

You can stop making such a fool of yourself now.

Or are you going to go all
"fire doesn't melt steel" on us now, clown?

Brennan said...

What's the upside?

Even for Zero.


Shit if I know. I'm still wondering what the hell POTUS is talking about in reference to "flexibility" with Russia in his second term.

The Senate still has to approve whatever colossal mistakes POTUS wants to make.

purplepenquin said...

Can always count on Jay to resort to childish namecalling whenever he is called out on his nonsense.

Don't know why he is mad at me...HE is the one who implied that only an idiot would beleive a "report." I was just pointing out that he seems to beleive at least one "report" himself.

virgil xenophon said...

Look, remember Obama has an Attny General who thought it just peachy-keen/right&proper--was the driving force--behind the release/pardon (or were their sentences just commuted?) of
the FALN Puerto Rican terrorists during the Clinton Administration. Not only that, but Holder as the then Deputy Atty Gen responsible for all clemency requests HID from the public record the fact that the FBI, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, and US Attorny's office was on record as vehemently opposing release until the deed was done. With the same guy now installed as Attny Gen and Obama's WELL DOCUMENTED belief in "outreach" to the Muslim world at almost any cost, *and an Atty Gen. who apparently--hell, OBVIOUSLY--shares Obama's sensibilities regarding Muslims) what do YOU think, sportsfans? I'm takin' odds..

purplepenquin said...

What's the upside?

Even for Zero.


I reckon it is the same upside for when Bush gave into their demands that we withdraw our troops from their Holy Land.

Brennan said...

The very real possibility that the Blind Sheik will be released points to the deep penetration of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Rahman will not be released. If the President did this there would be a significant revolt from the population and the US Attorneys office. The President would be removed from office in weeks.

Seeing Red said...

--Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who, before Congress, asked "whether there is an intention 'at any time to release the Blind Sheikh,'" said, "Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention."---

The proper follow-up questions are has anyone on your staff been in contact with and hasn't told you their intentions yet?


and

What other department would know?

SteveR said...

Andy and Freder dismiss Ann's posts of this type as conspiracy theory/rumor mongering. Obviously they have no sense of how this blog works. When is it Ann's job to comply with your sense of how things should work. You don't like it, leave. I get no pleasure out of you making yourself look stupid, that conclusion was easily reached a long time ago.

Andy R. said...

I love how people pushing conspiracy theories use ALL CAPS throughout their rants to make it clear how CRAZY they are.

LarsPorsena said...

Hey everybody!! It's called a trial balloon.

edutcher said...

purplepenquin said...

What's the upside?

Even for Zero.


I reckon it is the same upside for when Bush gave into their demands that we withdraw our troops from their Holy Land.


Uh, first of all, their Holy Land is also ours; Dome of the Rock, Peoples of the Book, and all that jazz.

Second, Dubya's decision was based on the fact those troops were needed elsewhere, mostly Iraq. They weren't pulled until '03.

Bryan C said...

"What's the upside?

Even for Zero."

Peace in our time? Reset button? An atonement for our blasphemies?

I'm worried that this administration might be stupid/delusional/desperate enough to believe it would work.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

I love how people pushing conspiracy theories use ALL CAPS throughout their rants to make it clear how CRAZY they are.

As opposed to calling anybody who disagrees with you about anything an anti-gay bigot?

PS And he lies, too. Chick-Fil-A didn't cave to the queers.

virgil xenophon said...

Oh, and for everybody here who asks "What's the upside" for Obama? He's a "true believer,"
sportsfans. For him, ideological virtue is its own reward. Remember the interview on ABC pre-election when confronted with the historical fact that lower capital-gains taxrates actually brought in MORE revenue to the US Treasury? And his reply that he didn't care, he'd raise the tax anyway for the "fairness" that was in it?

Get real, kiddies, you think Obama cares for public opinion--ESPECIALLY in a second term when he has more "flexibility?" He's on inertial ideological navigation. No course-corrections from input from the reality of the firmament for this guy--a highly destructive ideological leftist missile on internal guidance impervious to
jamming or course-correction--headed straight at the heart of the very philosophical foundations upon which this country was built..

Andy R. said...

PS And he lies, too. Chick-Fil-A didn't cave to the queers.

You're correct. It was widely reported ("Chick-fil-A moderates its stance on gay issues") that Chick-fil-A had a change of heart, but that seemed to have been a misunderstanding or a PR ploy by either Dan Cathy or the groups he was negotiating with.

It's fine, we'll keep up the boycott and campaign against Chick-fil-A until we see some change from them.

Brennan said...

You're correct. It was widely reported ("Chick-fil-A moderates its stance on gay issues") that Chick-fil-A had a change of heart, but that seemed to have been a misunderstanding or a PR ploy by either Dan Cathy or the groups he was negotiating with

See. It was Chick-fil-A's fault. It couldn't possibly be Alderman Joe Moreno's office that misread communications.

When there are two parties to a conversation and one party is saying they have documents they won't share with anyone, it's a good bet they are blowing smoke up your ass. But if you're head is stuck up your ass you'll neither see nor smell the smoke.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

It's fine, we'll keep up the boycott and campaign against Chick-fil-A until we see some change from them.

At which point, we'll all be playing hockey with Satan.

Seeing Red said...

...In a meeting three weeks ago, Chick-fil-A officials showed Moreno IRS 990 forms to prove they hadn't been giving to anti-gay groups, says Moreno spokesman Matthew Bailey. This and the company's pledge to treat all people with respect prompted Moreno to drop his opposition to Chick-fil-A's plans, Bailey says.....


I wasn't aware any gay person hadn't beeen served. Aren't there gay franchisee owners?

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

So what exactly did they "moderate?"

That article was a whole lotta nuthin'.

OTOH, I wonder if Morena got a campaign contribution?

It is the Chicago Way, after all.

Seeing Red said...

Moreno.

Marshal said...

virgil xenophon said...
He's a "true believer,"
sportsfans. For him, ideological virtue is its own reward. Remember the interview on ABC pre-election when confronted with the historical fact that lower capital-gains taxrates actually brought in MORE revenue to the US Treasury?


He's a true believer in redistribution and domestic political power. His foreign policy goals are different. He mostly wants it to go away, but will use it as outreach to domestic groups if it keeps them in the fold for domestic purposes.

Andy R. said...

I reckon it is the same upside for when Bush gave into their demands that we withdraw our troops from their Holy Land.

Uh, first of all, their Holy Land is also ours; Dome of the Rock, Peoples of the Book, and all that jazz.

Second, Dubya's decision was based on the fact those troops were needed elsewhere, mostly Iraq. They weren't pulled until '03.


1) He was talking about Saudi Arabia.

2) American troops were pulled out because we didn't want to make al Qaeda mad, which was explicitly stated by the Bush administration.

purplepenquin said...

When there are two parties to a conversation and one party is saying they have documents they won't share with anyone, it's a good bet they are blowing smoke up your ass

Like Romney's tax returns?

heh

McTriumph said...

Conspiracy theory? What better way for Obama to shore up Morsi's power and legitimacy in Egypt that release the blind sheik to his custody, it would neuter his opposition.

What exactly is the sheik's crime, a fail bombing or two in NYC decades ago? His other crimes? Topple the an Egyptian regime that Kissinger flipped from the Soviets in 1970. A regime that over time has helped secure Israel. A regime that Obama and Hillary helped topple.How is the release of the sheik not congruent with Obama's foreign policy?

Chip Ahoy said...

Excruciatingly layered. For example, "Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention."

Help me out here, okay? I sat next to you hoping you'd explain stuff like this. What's layered about that? That seemed normal not excruciating, only one layer. But I'm really dumb this way. I thought Animal farm was about animals and The Crucible was about Salem. I have to have things explained.

Are you comparing that with what you think she should have said, like, "Hell no!" Is that the type of direct one-layer non-excruciating answer that would work?

Seeing Red said...

Or college transcripts or video tapes like the LA Times?

So why don't we just make it a law that everyone has to show tax returns to get a job?

Let's make it really open, why don't we just put it all on line?

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

I reckon it is the same upside for when Bush gave into their demands that we withdraw our troops from their Holy Land.

Uh, first of all, their Holy Land is also ours; Dome of the Rock, Peoples of the Book, and all that jazz.

Second, Dubya's decision was based on the fact those troops were needed elsewhere, mostly Iraq. They weren't pulled until '03.


1) He was talking about Saudi Arabia.


So was I, genius, but the Moslem Holy Land also encompasses all the places Christians and Jews hold sacred. That's why I said Dome of the Rock and Peoples of the Book.

2) American troops were pulled out because we didn't want to make al Qaeda mad, which was explicitly stated by the Bush administration.

We'd already been attacked by them, hot shot. It's a little like banning "Der Fuhrer's Face" because we didn't want to make the Krauts mad.

Off Wiki (I know) :

On April 29, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would be withdrawing US troops from the country stating that the Iraq War no longer required the support. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had earlier said that the continuing US presence in the kingdom was putting American lives in danger.

The move was controversial ... while others said that the United States were caving to the demands of Osama bin Laden.

dbp said...

Given the WSJ piece, short of an unequivical statement from the president himself, any thinking person must conclude that release of the blind sheik is "on the table".

I pledge to rule-out the whole possibility if Obama says, "As long as I am president of the United States, the only way Abdel Rahman will leave US custody is if he dies in prison."

Jay said...

purplepenquin said...

Don't know why he is mad at me...HE is the one who implied that only an idiot would beleive a "report." I was just pointing out that he seems to beleive at least one "report" himself.


Hey idiot:

I don't believe any "report"

I don't need a "report" to know that Bush wasn't behind 9-11.

The fact you actually believe there was an analogy there speaks volumes about your intelligence.

McTriumph said...

I doubt that the supposedly ignorant cowboy "bring it on" Bush gave a shit about AQ's feelings. He pull US troops out of the Kingdom to protect the regime from the mob and add to the esteem of the regime domestically. The same thing Obama would achieve in Egypt by releasing the sheik.

AF said...

It strikes me as extraordinarily inappropriate for the judge who sentenced the blind sheik to prison to advocate for his continued imprisonment. It creates the appearance that the original sentence was not dispassionate.

Brennan said...

OTOH, I wonder if Morena got a campaign contribution?

It is the Chicago Way, after all.


It's the First Ward. The birthplace of Chicago's corruption. You don't get permits without paying. You're either paying the Alderman or you're paying his greasy friends.

purplepenquin said...

I don't need a "report" to know that Bush wasn't behind 9-11.

You don't need a report 'cause you saw a video, right?

*rolls eyes*

Keep diggin' kiddo...this is kinda funny.

Christopher in MA said...

Like Romney's tax returns?

Which he has now released, leaving the gibbering monkeys on your side to sputter that he paid too much in taxes as part of some dastardly plan to make himself look more attractive as a presidential candidate.

Heh indeed.

BDNYC said...

AF said...

It strikes me as extraordinarily inappropriate for the judge who sentenced the blind sheik to prison to advocate for his continued imprisonment. It creates the appearance that the original sentence was not dispassionate.


He sentenced him to life. It's extraordinarily inappropriate that he still thinks it a just punishment? Bizarre comment.

Colonel Angus said...

Which he has now released, leaving the gibbering monkeys on your side to sputter that he paid too much in taxes as part of some dastardly plan to make himself look more attractive as a presidential candidate.

Actually, to liberals, his release of tax returns provided sufficient fodder to argue for higher taxes on the rich. It's unconsciable that he gave a higher percentage of his income to charity than to the Federal government.

Lovernios said...

At the risk of being accused of ‘pedaling’ conspiracy rumors… oh what the hell, might as well go all in.

Here’s my nefarious plot:
The protests in Cairo were started to provide the atmosphere for a groundswell of demand from the Arab Street to free the Blind Sheik by the Muslim Brotherhood appreciative of Obama’s support for their coming to power.

This gave cover to a kidnap operation of the Ambassador to Libya by an ‘administration-friendly’ militia to be used as a ‘prisoner exchange’ for Rahman. The ambassador’s itinerary was made available and the consulate was deliberately left unguarded, however the two former Seals weren’t supposed to be there and gummed up the plan which leads to the death of the intended kidnap victim.

The ‘disgusting and offensive’ video excuse was thrown out there to deflect the media and the public.

Marshal said...

BDNYC said...
He sentenced him to life. It's extraordinarily inappropriate that he still thinks it a just punishment? Bizarre comment.


The Althouse trolls don't make honest evaluations, their purpose is merely to put the best Obama spin on the topic no matter how illogical. They believe people don't evaluate positions but rather merely accept whatever spin they come across. Apparently they fail to understand everyone that's true of is already a leftist.

AF said...

He sentenced him to life. It's extraordinarily inappropriate that he still thinks it a just punishment?

No, it's extraordinarily inappropriate that he published an advocacy piece in the WSJ about the case.

If the sentencing judge showed up at a convict's execution with a picket sign saying "You Deserve to Die," I think you'd see the impropriety. This is analogous.

purplepenquin said...

Which he has now released

That ain't quite true.

He finished releasing two years of his tax returns, but he has yet to show the several years that is the norm for this type of thing. (Not just for running for President either - he demanded over a decades worth of tax returns from his VP choices)

Marshal said...

AF said...
If the sentencing judge showed up at a convict's execution with a picket sign saying "You Deserve to Die," I think you'd see the impropriety. This is analogous.


To point out this troll's obvious errors: the circumstance he describes isn't remotely analogous to reality. Note the picket vs article difference. This creates a negative reaction among those who think judges shouldn't be political activists. The judge hasn't done this in fact, but the artificial analogy creates the emotional reaction as if he had.

Note also the "You Deserve to Die" imagery, inaccurately linking the judge with an inappropriate emotionalism.

But these sorts of emotional insinuations are routine on the left. If they didn't use these tactics they'd be forced to admit they have nothing to attack the messenger with.

MayBee said...

Obama would release the Blind Sheik to Egypt for the same reason he wanted our embassy in Libya to have a small security footprint.

purplepenquin said...

leaving the gibbering monkeys on your side to sputter that he paid too much in taxes as part of some dastardly plan to make himself look more attractive as a presidential candidate

I don't think it is a matter of opinion that he paid far more in taxes than he should have to, is it? Or are you disputing that? Please clarify.

What everybody on my side was talking about is how Romney ordered his accountants to make sure that he actually ends up paying what percentage he said earlier he pays.

By doing so, it looked as if he just pulled that percentage out of thin air when he first said it ...and that is what everyone on my side was saying about it being a plan to make him look more attractive as a candidate. (Tho I don't recall anyone on my side using the word "dastardly" to describe that plan.)

My side was saying...not sputtering...that there is a difference between making your words back up your paperwork and making your paperwork back up your words.

Do you think there is no ethical difference between the two?

Michael said...

PP: As to Romney's tax returns that were released, what is your view on the sources of his income and the deductions that he took. Interested as well in whether or not you think money invested by others in blind trusts should be guided by the person putting them in trust and the implications.

Tks

Michael said...

PurpleP Why would there be an "ethical difference" between saying you did something and doing something even if you had not intended to do something before you said you would do it?

McTriumph said...

Romney released what is required by law. He also released ten years of tax returns to McCain to be vetted for VP. McCain and his staff have claimed that Romney's returns were legit. Romney's CPA firm "attested" to the fact that the returns over the last ten years are substantially the same. Other than the fact that we have no moral or legal right to see Romney's unreleased returns anymore than we have the right to see all the post's here, the matter is settled.
Besides the voters and media who have their panties in a wad over this aren't in anyway going to vote for the Romney ticket. They prefer the nihilistic financial armageddon offered by the amateur Obama. Math is hard.

DADvocate said...

Word has it the blind sheik was told last week he was free to go, but he's still looking for the door.

purplepenquin said...

PS - by "my side" I of course am referring to any/all members of the Ancient Order of Sacred Penguins.

PPS - don't have an opinion about blind trusts & whatnot. Should I?

MayBee said...


My side was saying...not sputtering...that there is a difference between making your words back up your paperwork and making your paperwork back up your words.


"Your side" doesn't like it because it exposes all those millionaires* who complain about not having to pay enough in taxes for the hypocrites they are. Think you should pay more taxes? Just go ahead and do it, like Romney did.


*including our president

purplepenquin said...

Why would there be an "ethical difference" between saying you did something and doing something even if you had not intended to do something before you said you would do it?

Did Romney say "This is the percent I pay" or did he say "This is the percent I will pay"?

~~~~~~~~

Romney released what is required by law.

True dat. Just like there ain't no law saying he can't wear a clown mask while giving his speeches, the man can legally do what he wants to in regards to these records...but the voters can also point out how unusual/unprecedented his behavior is as well as wonder what exactly is it that he is hiding.

He also released ten years of tax returns to McCain to be vetted for VP

Yup, and after McCain looked at 'em it was decided that Palin was a much better choice.

*shrug*

MayBee said...


Yup, and after McCain looked at 'em it was decided that Palin was a much better choice.


The voters rejected McCain's judgement.

Is there anyone pretending they can't decide how to vote unless they know more about Romney's tax situation?

MayBee said...

McCain was not elected, but we should use all of his 2008 choices as the holy grail.

AF said...

"Note also the "You Deserve to Die" imagery, inaccurately linking the judge with an inappropriate emotionalism."

Note that in my hypothetical, the judge carrying the sign has already sentenced the convict to death. So he has already decided that under the law the convict deserved to die. All he is doing is publicly advocating for the exact determination he made as a judge -- which is the same thing Mukasey is doing. In both cases it is inappropriate.

purplepenquin said...

Is there anyone pretending they can't decide how to vote unless they know more about Romney's tax situation?

Well, folks are trying to spread the rumor that Romney released those records so obviously some in his camp thinks it is an important enough issue.

Michael said...

Pp. "Did Romney say "This is the percent I pay" or did he say "This is the percent I will pay"?"

Since his statement was made before he paid or filed either statement would be accurate.

Michael K said...

" I wonder if Ann will apologize in a couple months when Rahman dies in U.S. prison."

The reply:


" So, Zero will free Cap'n Hooks if he is re-elected. And if he is not, he will free Cap'n Hooks just as a big Eff Eww to the country for spurning his little Kenyan ass."

I think this is correct. Obama will have no more restraint if he loses than if he won. The period between the election and January 20 will be very dangerous. Obama is all about Obama, not the country.

To try to explain things to PurpleP is not easy but here's a try.

Bush moved the headquarters for US troops from Saudi to Qatar for several reasons. It is an island and security is a bit easier. There are not the ridiculous restraints on women so women troops were not a provocation to the imams by driving and dress criteria. Those are a couple of good reasons.

"Caving" to OBL might have been a minor consideration but that idea probably extended the stay until the inconvenience won out.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Release him on a flight over the Red Sea.

purplepenquin said...

Accurate ain't always ethical, is it?

Sorry if I can't explain it any clearer to you Micheal, but I honestly think there is a difference between saying something is this way 'cause it is actually that way and making something that way later in order to make your earlier statement become true.

Reckon this will just be another thing we respectfully agree to disagree on...

Marshal said...

AF said...
"Note also the "You Deserve to Die" imagery, inaccurately linking the judge with an inappropriate emotionalism."

Note that in my hypothetical, the judge carrying the sign has already sentenced the convict to death. So he has already decided that under the law the convict deserved to die. All he is doing is publicly advocating for the exact determination he made as a judge -- which is the same thing Mukasey is doing. In both cases it is inappropriate.


The difference - as already stated and unrebutted - is the implied emotionalism. Most people would agree picketing is inappropriate for a judge. Picketers are emotional advocates who ignore any evidence or argument which doesn't advance their side. This would be inappropriate for a judge, and the troll's choice of analogy is transferring this inappropriateness into a circumstance where it isn't warranted.

All the judge has done is written that the sentence and process to reach it was fair and should not be overturned for political reasons. This is a reasoned and sober approach the troll is intentionally undermining by attempting to reframe the judge's actions.

purplepenquin said...

To try to explain things to PurpleP is not easy but here's a try

Would it be too hard for you to explain where you saw me say that caving into OBL was the only consideration for President Bush?

Nathan Alexander said...

Compare/contrast:

1) Kerry promised to release his medical records to "prove" the Swiftboaters were liars.

Result: He let his biographer see them, and no one else.

2) Before he was a Presidential candidate, Barack Obama made claims for years that he was from Kenya.

Liberals say anyone who believes Obama originally told the truth is racist, crazy, or both.

Result: After approximately 3 years, he released a .pdf file, not his certificate. The only people who have claimed to see it are partisans.

3) On zero evidence, Harry Reid claims Romney paid no taxes for 10 years, and the Obama campaign claims Romney is a felon.

result: Romney releases his tax returns to a non-partisan 3rd party that specializes in independent verifications.

Liberals go crazy trying to explain there is something wrong with this or claiming "he didn't release his returns so he has something to hide!!


The objective conclusion: liberals are stupid and gullible.

Nathan Alexander said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
purplepenquin said...

Nath brings up a great point: Romney is acting much like Kerry and Obama did/do.

Nathan Alexander said...

Would it be too hard for you to explain where you saw me say that caving into OBL was the only consideration for President Bush?

The only way Bush caved to OBL at all is if you think al Qaeda is the ruling family in Saudi Arabia.

Aren't you afraid pushing that notion will damage your already-poor credibility?

MayBee said...

Well, folks are trying to spread the rumor that Romney released those records so obviously some in his camp thinks it is an important enough issue.

Would they be saying anything if the Obama camp weren't constantly harping on it? No.

It's obvious Obama is the one who thinks it's an important issue. And that isn't because he thinks he's going to convince voters that Romney's tax releases are important. It's because he's trying to keep attention on anything- anything- other than his own record and lack of ideas.

MayBee said...

For example, look at this post. It is about whether Obama is considering releasing the Blind Sheik and how convincing his administration is being when discussing it.

And Purple Penguin says, "But Mitt Romney's taxes!!!!!"

Nathan Alexander said...

"Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention."

According to some commentators, that means "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"

Yep, this comment is exactly as predicted.

So where did you go for training in being a political public opinion operative, PP? Or what is the actual title of your duties here, anyway? FUD Coordinator, or something like that?

Did they pay expenses for your training, or did you pay your own way?

Michael said...

PurpleP Let me try this another way. Let us say that I run money for you under a blind trust. I make the investments in your portfolio. You do not. You may not, probably don't, know what investments I am making on your behalf. Now quick, what is your tax rate going to be this year? You don't know? Of course you don't because you don't yet know where you were invested, what the returns were, whether or not they were capital or ordinary and so on. Are you getting a glimmer yet?

You may be suggesting that it is Romney's obligation to use every possible tax deduction for every year. But I think what you really want is a stupid gotcha about whether a rate was 14%, 13% or 12.82%. And then the chance to shriek: hypocrite!!!

Nathan Alexander said...

@pp
Nath brings up a great point: Romney is acting much like Kerry and Obama did/do.

I guess we need to add one to the playbook:
9) when trapped, make non-sequitur accusations to try and change the subject.

I never really thought I'd identified all the liberal-progressive operative gambits, but I didn't think I'd get another identified so soon.

Michael said...

I think it is quite possible that the blind Sheik could be released in trade for something that Obama would like to have and believes he would receive. What that thing might be I haven't a clue. Good will? A promise of behaving around our embassies? An agreement to look the other way on an attack on Iran?

Romney would not consider the release and the discussion at hand would never take place.

Methadras said...

Andy R. said...

I can't keep up with all the right-wing conspiracy theories this election season.


Yeah, it must be really hard for you to keep track of all kinds of information when your primary inputs are already in use... and probably all at the same time. You go multitasker.

MayBee said...

"Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention."

According to some commentators, that means "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"


You know what it doesn't mean?

"Absolutely not!"

Andy R. said...


The only way Bush caved to OBL at all is if you think al Qaeda is the ruling family in Saudi Arabia.

Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair

Q: And then the last question, you've been very patient and generous. That is what's next? Where do we stand now in the campaign that you talked about right after September 11th?

There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.


Osama wanted us out so we got out.

McTriumph said...

Accurate ain't always ethical, is it?

Sorry if I can't explain it any clearer to you Micheal, but I honestly think there is a difference between saying something is this way 'cause it is actually that way and making something that way later in order to make your earlier statement become true.


IT'S CALLED KEEPING A PROMISE!

Supporters of the Obama administration calling out anyone on ethics is absurd.

purplepenquin said...

It's because he's trying to keep attention on anything- anything- other than his own record and lack of ideas.

Could very well be. I also heard this theory for why the birthers act the way they do.

~~~~~
So where did you go for training in being a political public opinion operative, PP? Or what is the actual title of your duties here, anyway? FUD Coordinator, or something like that? Did they pay expenses for your training, or did you pay your own way?

Earlier you accused me of constantly questioning your motives, but you failed to provide any actual examples of such behavior.

This comment of yours serves as an example of you questioning my motives.

make non-sequitur accusations

You're the one who brought up Obama and Kerry as a comparison to Romney, not I.

And I think you were right to do so. Kerry was a total shithead in dealing with his situation, and Obama also seems to be playing games about it, if not flat-out lying.

Based on what you posted, Romney is acting just as they did...so why you going into personal-attack-mode for agreeing with you?

Becoming obvious that you respond to who says something, rather than what is being said.

~~~~~

But I think what you really want is a stupid gotcha about whether a rate was 14%, 13% or 12.82%.

Nope, not at all. I've repeatedly tried explaining what I find troubling about his behavior in this situation, but I guess we've got another* one of those communication problems between us.



*(Remember how I tried to explain why fatigue is an important issue to some trades..including providing links to studies/reports...but the only thing you got from my messages was that I didn't want to be late for snack time? I don't know if the problem is on my end or your end, but it is becoming obvious that you&I are simply unable to communicate effectively.)

Nathan Alexander said...

It is problematic to talk to PP about a govt or govt official keeping promises. PP believes is is perfectly fine for the govt to lie to citizens whenever it can make even a tangential reference to some vague "national security" issue.

...well, to be fair, I'm sure he only believes that to be true for Democrat-run administrations.

george said...

Does the president even have the power to release someone like this? Wouldn't he have to pardon him first? Or are they going to pretend his custody is being transferred like the POS who downed the plane and was sent back to Libya?

Obama failed to support the uprising in Iran that would have resulted in a regime friendlier to our interests were it successful while supporting uprisings in every other Middle Eastern country that resulted in regimes more hostile to our interests. That is why it is so easy for people to believe he would act against our interests with the Sheik. It is what he does.

Our foreign policy would be little different if our enemies were running it.

purplepenquin said...

PP believes is is perfectly fine for the govt to lie to citizens whenever it can make even a tangential reference to some vague "national security" issue.

Never said that at all.

Why do you continue to lie about me and my statements?

Michael said...

PurpleP: The reason, I believe, is that you have trouble thinking there might be some fly shit in the pepper. You focus on that which is immaterial, including the snacks, and magnify that which is insignificant into something that is very significant indeed. People who spend time looking for the fly shit in the pepper are not people I can communicate with because they are so focused on telling me why fly shit is bad for me.

McTriumph said...

Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda.

It's not like the USA was doing anything else to aggravate AQ or help their recruitment. The USA pulled out US troops for the Kingdom's domestic politics.

MayBee said...

I don't see any Obama supporters on here saying, "there is simply no way Obama would do that. His foreign policy is consistent and predictable, and I know his thinking well enough to know he would be absolutely against releasing the Sheik to Egypt."

They don't dare say such a thing, because they have the Libyan embassy in their heads, and they know Obama left an embassy vulnerable for some reason. And that reason seems to be: Obama self-determines the "right thing to do".

purplepenquin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
purplepenquin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
purplepenquin said...

You focus on that which is immaterial, including the snacks, and magnify that which is insignificant into something that is very significant indeed.

I was talking about people getting hurt...even dying...on the job. Never brought up "snacks" at all...that is what you chose to focus on, while ignoring everything that was actually said.

We either have a true communication problem or you're just playing bullshit games...and I don't think you're playing games. You really-truly beleive that the union workers were protesting because of something as trivial as "snacks" rather than real&actual issues, and nothing anybody tells you can convince you otherwise.

After all, you're smart enough to know the difference between pepper and fly shit...or something like that....haven't heard that idiom before and it was kinda lost on me.


Michael said...

PurpleP "Nope, not at all. I've repeatedly tried explaining what I find troubling about his behavior in this situation, but I guess we've got another* one of those communication problems between us. "

In which post you demonstrate your deflection technique. I wrote a rather lengthy post about blind trusts and the implications concerning being able to predict with certainty a tax rate. You ignore it and plead the victim. You are too cute by half, dude.

Michael said...

PurpleP: Imagine an entire table covered two inches deep in black pepper. Imagine a fly landing in the pepper and shitting in the pepper. Imagine someone using a trowel to mix up the pepper on the top of the table. Imagine you thinking that it was important to find the fly shit in the pepper. Because it might make someone sick.

The union issues were about money and work rules. Period. You went on and on about the possible tragedy of some hero falling off a crane because his blood sugar was not right because some meaney boss didn't give him enough break time. I remember the argument well. Very revealing.

purplepenquin said...

I wrote a rather lengthy post about blind trusts and the implications concerning being able to predict with certainty a tax rate

Yes, I saw that post. It basically said "Romney wants more snacks" or something along those lines. Kinda hard to tell with all that flyshit splattered everywhere.

*rolls eyes*


Seriously, taxes and blind trusts and investment laws don't really matter...what matters is that a politician made a statement and then later took actions to make sure it was actually truthful.

Is that the worse thing a politician can do? Not at all...but it is slimy and voters deserve to know about it.

purplepenquin said...

You went on and on about the possible tragedy of some hero falling off a crane because his blood sugar was not right because some meaney boss didn't give him enough break time

Yup, that is exactly how I was trying to explain my stance!

*rolls eyes*

Like I said before, I don't think you're playing games at all...you've truly convinced yourself that is what I was going "on and on about", haven't you?

Thanks for clearing all that up...it is very insightful.

bgates said...

PS - by "my side" I of course am referring to

Why do you continue to lie about you and your statements? You're a progressive Obama supporter. Your side is the progressive Obama supporter side. Your pretense of disinterested neutrality was a transparent fraud long before you slipped into talking about which side you were on.

Marshal said...

Seriously, taxes and blind trusts and investment laws don't really matter...what matters is that a politician made a statement and then later took actions to make sure it was actually truthful.

Is that the worse thing a politician can do? Not at all...but it is slimy and voters deserve to know about it.


Romney made a factual statement about his past returns. He then made sure the same statement applied to future returns because he knew people like Penguin would try to make it into a political issue.

The only slime is Penguin's dogged attempt to portray the nothing as something merely because it fits his political preferences.

Nathan Alexander said...

PP believes is is perfectly fine for the govt to lie to citizens whenever it can make even a tangential reference to some vague "national security" issue.

Never said that at all.

Why do you continue to lie about me and my statements?


Oh, dear. I'm going to have to prove you a liar again.

Why do you sockpoppets always resort to false accusations of lies?

Here's the link to your first comment where you said it was okay for the govt to lie for national security. And here's the second:

Q: you are going on record that the US govt should lie to citizens?

PP: Sometimes, yes.

Q:On what topics?

PP:National Security & military operations.


So the better question is: why do you lie like a rug when you feel trapped? Is it because you lack courage to face up to your own words, or are do you really think honesty is completely unimportant?

AF said...

The difference - as already stated and unrebutted - is the implied emotionalism. Most people would agree picketing is inappropriate for a judge. Picketers are emotional advocates who ignore any evidence or argument which doesn't advance their side. This would be inappropriate for a judge, and the troll's choice of analogy is transferring this inappropriateness into a circumstance where it isn't warranted.

So you think it would be appropriate for the sentencing judge to publish an op ed advocating for the execution of a convict who is on death row? Or arguing that he shouldn't be granted clemency?

Michael said...

PurpleP There is nothing slimy about what Romney did. You are either unwilling to understand the blind trust implications or you understand and again deflect. It is perfectly clear that you cannot know your tax rate before you have filed your taxes. I am done with you bird. It has been too insightful.

Too cute by half.

Nathan Alexander said...

@PP:
You seem to be a native speaker of English. Why is your reading comprehension so lousy?

1)
me:make non-sequitur accusations

PP:You're the one who brought up Obama and Kerry as a comparison to Romney, not I.

Bringing up Obama and Kerry are not non-sequiturs. A non-sequitur is when you start with one point or idea, and switch to a second in the middle of an idea, thought, or statement, without logic or reason.

I brought up Obama and Kerry due to how they handled accusations that could have been resolved by releasing records to an impartial 3rd party, their failure to do so, the support from liberals for their methods, and the exact opposite reaction to Romney actually releasing his records to an accountable, impartial 3rd party.

Your non-sequitur is to accuse Romney of doing the exact same thing, despite the clear difference in how they handled the situation.

It is a non-sequitur in the same way as if I handed you a screwdriver, and you responded by saying, "Thanks, now hand me a screwdriver this time."

I hope that clears it up.

2)
PP: Earlier you accused me of constantly questioning your motives, but you failed to provide any actual examples of such behavior.

No, I accused you of using the same playbook used by all the progressive operatives on the thread. That playbook includes questioning motives as a way to avoid facing up to an effective challenge. That doesn't mean that you were using that technique on me at that time.

Have you ever used Venn diagrams? It might help you in this case. Heck, it might help you in most of your arguments, since you seem to have difficulty with basic logic.

A = your methods to shift the parameters of debate at that time to benefit Obama's re-election chances.
B = the various methods used by progressives to shift the parameters of debate to benefit Obama's re-election chances.

All A is B.
That does not mean all B is A.

Can you diagram that out? It will help you understand, and perhaps keep you from feeling like such an injured victim.

Cedarford said...

Seeing Red said...
Yet he won't release Pollard......

=============
Different crimes.
Pollard is a traitor and spy.
al-Rahman is a foreigner and violent Islamist involved in terror conspiracy.

The Powers that Be have some basic rules that they actually apply rather consistently to certain crimes.
Assassins lile Sirhan Sirhan will not get probation.
Traitors and spies like Pollard, the Walker Family, Ames, Hanssen will rot in jail for the full duration of their sentence - unless they are traded.

But Jihadis and other terrorists have been freed if it suits political interest - or "Victim Families" scream loud enough in Israel, for example, that they free 200 terrorists to get two coffins containing dead Israelis back.
Besides Israel, of course, we had Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama all springing terrorists to suit exegiencies.
Hillary wanted some Puerto Rican terrorists sprung to help her Senate run. And got it, even though they had involvement with deaths at Fraunce's Tavern. Political exegiency.

One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom-Loving!!! freedom fighter. A saying that was around long before Reagan called proto-Al Qaeda the Holy Mujahadeen Freedom Lovers.
And successful terrorists are sometimes later revered. Mao, Nelson Mandela, Trotsky, Jomo Kenyatta, etc.


Darrell said...

Obama is going to free 1/3 of the Gitmo detainees.

Be a "Beet Of The Week" like Freder and Andy and don't spread rumors about the Blind Shiek, Report those who do your neighborhood guard, ASAP.

Marshal said...

AF said...

So you think it would be appropriate for the sentencing judge to publish an op ed advocating for the execution of a convict who is on death row?


I think it's acceptable for a judge to defend his court proceedings in a dignified manner.

John Cunningham said...

Comrade Urkel will not "release" the Blind Sheikh, he will "transfer" him to Egyptian custody. and a state dept stooge yesterday said that there were no "recent" discussions with "senior Egyptian officials" about the Blind Sheikh.

Michael said...

John Cunningham has it right

AF said...

The real question is: Will Mitt marry the Blind Sheik?

To date, the Romney campaign has been silent about the scuttlebutt surrounding Mitt and the terrorist cleric. Just as damning, no one has come forward to confirm that an affectionate and playful correspondence between the two hasn't been continuing for years

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/25/1136293/-Will-Mitt-Romney-marry-the-Blind-Sheik?detail=hide

MayBee said...

That tactic seems clever, AF, until you realize this administration has been asked about this and will not just answer "no". They don't ignore the question, and they haven't *not* been asked the question. They say things like "there are no current plans" or "I don't know of any plans". A simple "no" would do.

Not all questions to the president are ridiculous, and I hope you aren't implying that he shouldn't be asked about it at all.

purplepenquin said...

You're a progressive Obama supporter

My many statements telling people not to vote for Obama says otherwise.

So again, I have to ask...why do you feel the need to constantly lie about me?

~~~~~~~~~

Why do you sockpoppets always resort to false accusations of lies?

This is the only name I've used on this forum. Why do you feel the need to make up these lies about me? Plus I'd like to point out that this is yet another example of you questioning my motives. Guess it was your own personal playbook you posted the other night, eh?

Also, the links your provided doesn't back up your claim about what you allege I said. Did you want to try again or you gonna just make up something else about me?

I accused you of using the same playbook used by all the progressive operatives on the thread.

So you are saying I don't actually do any of that stuff on that list, but rather you were just using me as a target so you could unleash about all those liberals that perceive act as such.

Uhm...sure...makes about as much sense as anything else you've said.

William said...

I haven't read all the comments so I apologize if this suggestion has been previously offered. It seems to me that for obvious political considerations it is impossible for Obama to free the blind Sheikh. He could, however, as a substitute and as a good will gesture to the Arab world free Charlie Manson. While it's true that Charley is not a Muslim, he does have a swastika tattoo on his forehead and surely that must be worth something to pious Moslems. Perhaps he could be offered a home and a job in Iran. If word got out that Charley was in charge of their nuclear program, oil could easily pop up beyond $200 a barrel. Win win for everybody.

Nathan Alexander said...

@PP,
So you are saying I don't actually do any of that stuff on that list, but rather you were just using me as a target so you could unleash about all those liberals that perceive act as such.

Why do you lie about me telling the truth about you?

You can't seem to repeat anyone's words without adding your lies to it.

You were using some of the techniques. That doesn't mean you were using all of them at that time.

Now face up to your own words, and stop resorting to calling people liars any time your general dishonesty and lack of integrity are pointed out.

Maybe I'm wrong about you being a sockpuppet. But it is typical of a liberal progressive to accuse people of "LIES" for what may be mistakes, disagreements, or differences of opinion.

Your shrieks of dismay at getting called out are as tiresome as your attempts to spread FUD.

purplepenquin said...

Why do you lie about me telling the truth about you?

Why are you lying about the lying lies you lyingly tell about me, you lying liar who lies?

Ya, I went there.

You can't seem to repeat anyone's words without adding your lies to it

An example of you behaving as such is when you claimed the ObamaAdmin said "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt" when the actual statement was "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present"

Another example of you behaving as such was when you added the words "perfectly fine", "whenever" "tangential reference" and "vague" to my stated opinion in regards to when it might be acceptable for Big Bro to lie to the public.


Like someone said the other day, it is looking more&more like you are simply projecting your own boorish behavior upon others.

Maybe I'm wrong about you being a sockpuppet. But it is typical of a liberal progressive to accuse people of "LIES" for what may be mistakes, disagreements, or differences of opinion.

You're wrong about me being a sockpuppet and you're wrong about me being a liberal progressive.

Your inability to see a person as an actual person, and instead viewing them only as a member of a group, is making it very difficult to have a productive discussion.

These statements of yours indicate that you aren't actually talking with me anymore (if you ever were) but rather you're having an argument with all of those liberal progressives that have angered you in the past.

Either that, or you're just a Moby trying to make the far-right look bad. Neither of those options would surprise me...