Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


Bush is a liar. A chronic habitual liar.

And here I gave you an opportunity to actually back up your assertion
by providing only ONE of the "umpteum" examples that you were
absolutely sure about... yet, you didn't provide a single example to
back up your claim.

and if you expect me to believe any of this crap, so are you.

Throwing in the towel, huh, Bertie? Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 7, 5:54 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
out of context and "prove the point"...

Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....

Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones?
That wouldn't be characteristic.

Do you include FOX in the MSM? They might not have for the
same reasons that others didn't jump on Rumsfeld and Rice,
it would backfire on them when it was made clear what actually
happened.

The problem is, some people hearing that slip, don't realize it
was a slip.

It all depends on how it's presented, and in what context. See the
wikipedia example (quoting half the Cheney comments).

See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...owse_thread/th...

C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.

One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
contributor
to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
with America" campaign.

What's your point? If Kerry would have won (shuuuudder), they would
have said the same about Michael Moore (who's been shown to be a lot
more factually challenged than even Rush).

That is my point.

...

Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.

As is Air America... oh, wait...

Indeed. Perhaps we agree that political entertainers
are unduly influential.

Absolutely. It's a little like alcohol - a little here or there is
good for a laugh or two - a steady diet of it will kill you.

Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.

The difference is when Ann Coulter writes something, conservatives all
laugh at some very sardonic political satire. When Michael Moore does
the same thing, he gets an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". It
would be funny if about half the US didn't get the joke.

Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
case should not have had their convictions set
aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
She used the same arguments typically advanced
for limiting appeals from death row.

Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
about a case in which the fact of innocence was
not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
powerful defense of the appeals system..

I have no idea about the context of that. Could you provide a link?
It sounds like it might be hyperbole (she is known for a bit of that
now and then...). ;-)

Ann is another one who's constantly taken out of context. After the
uproar over her (lame, IMHO) comparison of John Edwards to a "gay
person", she took a lot of heat (which I don't have a problem with).
When she commented that those on the left get a free pass for saying
outrageous things - "Now, that would be mean. But about the same time
-- you know -- [HBO host] Bill Maher was not joking and saying he
wished [Vice President] Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist
attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about
John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a
terrorist assassination plot."

Her point was the horrendous double standard in the media - which then
helped prove it by splashing only the last sentence around like
Coulter really wished Edwards would be killed, rather than the fact
she was actually speaking about the media's bias and penchant for
sensationalism.

It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).

Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.

Seriously? I typed "pay for votes" into google and got over 38,000
hits. I had a buddy who was paid to register dead people in Chicago,
for example.

Mark "can you imagine having to do a recount in Cook County" Hickey

On Sep 8, 5:12 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 7, 5:54 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
out of context and "prove the point"...

Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....

Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones?
That wouldn't be characteristic.

Do you include FOX in the MSM? They might not have for the
same reasons that others didn't jump on Rumsfeld and Rice,
it would backfire on them when it was made clear what actually
happened.

The problem is, some people hearing that slip, don't realize it
was a slip.

It all depends on how it's presented, and in what context. See the
wikipedia example (quoting half the Cheney comments).


See my earlier discussions if this incident:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

..

Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
case should not have had their convictions set
aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
She used the same arguments typically advanced
for limiting appeals from death row.

Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
about a case in which the fact of innocence was
not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
powerful defense of the appeals system..

I have no idea about the context of that. Could you provide a link?
It sounds like it might be hyperbole (she is known for a bit of that
now and then...). ;-)

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matias_Reyes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120502.asp

...

It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).

Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.

Seriously? I typed "pay for votes" into google and got over 38,000
hits.

So? I googled "mark hickey apostle", and got over 55,000 hits.

I had a buddy who was paid to register dead people in Chicago,
for example.


He WAS, or he said he was? You see the problem
is that if we presume your buddy to be honest, then he
would not have done that, and if we presume him to be
dishonest then we cannot take his word for it.

BTW, Did you turn him in? If not, should we take your
word at face value?

If we are going to continue this, it ought to be posted
to misc.legal.moderated, do you think?

--

FF

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Bush is a liar. A chronic habitual liar.

And here I gave you an opportunity to actually back up your assertion
by providing only ONE of the "umpteum" examples that you were
absolutely sure about... yet, you didn't provide a single example to
back up your claim.

Yes I did, and you pretending not to notice or trying to narrow it as
if it were a barroom bet doen't alter that.


and if you expect me to believe any of this crap, so are you.

Throwing in the towel, huh, Bertie?

Moi?

You don't know me very well, do you?

Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.


I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.


Bertie

On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.

You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha?



You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
with the 9/11 attack.

Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.

Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
"umpteum" examples out there...


I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.

I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.


It's a pure and noble calling.

Mark "what passes for logic these days" Hickey- Hide quoted text -


Nice try, propoganda minister.

Oh wait, it wasn't


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.

You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha?

Smart enough to confuse you, it seems. Above, I suggest it should be
a piece of cake to show ONE quote where the administration claims a
link between 9/11 and Iraq. You agree, and post a link to WMD which
has nothing to do with 9/11. And you're STILL confused.

You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
with the 9/11 attack.

Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.

You do directly above.

Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
"umpteum" examples out there...

I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.

I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.

It's a pure and noble calling.

Sadly, it's one that many have...

Mark "what passes for logic these days" Hickey- Hide quoted text -


Nice try, propoganda minister.

Oh wait, it wasn't

Just facts.

Mark "the only one I am called to be" Hickey

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:

Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.

Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.

I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.

Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.

Mark "I know you're not REALLY as dumb as you come off" Hickey

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 8, 5:12 am, Mark Hickey wrote:

Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
case should not have had their convictions set
aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
She used the same arguments typically advanced
for limiting appeals from death row.

Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
about a case in which the fact of innocence was
not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
powerful defense of the appeals system..

Yeah, I'd say it was satire... some quotes:

"As part of the media's continuing series on how every criminal is
innocent, except asbestos manufacturers and abortion clinic
protesters, ..."

"But wait! The "Innocence Project" has produced an 11th-hour
confession from a sixth rapist, Matias Reyes. Stunning no one but
gullible reporters, he claims he acted alone. As is always the
case with surprise confessions exonerating others, Reyes faces no
penalty for this confession. To the contrary, Reyes is surely the
toast of his cellblock -- where, by happenstance, he is serving
time with another Central Park rapist, Kharey Wise. The statute of
limitations has run on the rape and Reyes is already serving life
in prison."

I have no idea about the context of that. Could you provide a link?
It sounds like it might be hyperbole (she is known for a bit of that
now and then...). ;-)

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matias_Reyes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120502.asp

I'm finding hard to feel too sorry for those who were found guilty by
five unanimous juries. Coulter makes the point that if there was any
indication that the confessions were improperly obtained, they would
have been thrown out in the appeals process (which they weren't).

This particular article is more of an indictment of the media for
seemingly rooting for the criminals than it is of the guys who were
found guilty in this case (IMHO of course).

It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).

Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.

Seriously? I typed "pay for votes" into google and got over 38,000
hits.

So? I googled "mark hickey apostle", and got over 55,000 hits.

Coool, I've been promoted.

Oh wait... I put my name in quotes and I'm down to 47 hits. Sigh...

I had a buddy who was paid to register dead people in Chicago,
for example.

He WAS, or he said he was? You see the problem
is that if we presume your buddy to be honest, then he
would not have done that, and if we presume him to be
dishonest then we cannot take his word for it.

BTW, Did you turn him in? If not, should we take your
word at face value?

If we are going to continue this, it ought to be posted
to misc.legal.moderated, do you think?

I guess I'll never really know if he did it or if it was just bravado
on his part. Either way, I don't really need his direct testimony
(and/or conviction) to know that there are problems with the voting
process in Chicago.

"voter fraud" chicago - this search yields 186,000 hits.

Mark "not an apostle yet, apparently" Hickey

Follow-ups set to misc.legal

On Sep 9, 2:34 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 8, 5:12 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
case should not have had their convictions set
aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
She used the same arguments typically advanced
for limiting appeals from death row.

Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
about a case in which the fact of innocence was
not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
powerful defense of the appeals system..

Yeah, I'd say it was satire... some quotes:

OK, so she is ridiculing those who argue against
overturning the convictions, right?


"As part of the media's continuing series on how every criminal is
innocent, except asbestos manufacturers and abortion clinic
protesters, ..."

"But wait! The "Innocence Project" has produced an 11th-hour
confession from a sixth rapist, Matias Reyes. Stunning no one but
gullible reporters, he claims he acted alone. As is always the
case with surprise confessions exonerating others, Reyes faces no
penalty for this confession. To the contrary, Reyes is surely the
toast of his cellblock -- where, by happenstance, he is serving
time with another Central Park rapist, Kharey Wise. The statute of
limitations has run on the rape and Reyes is already serving life
in prison."

Does it sound to you like maybe she wants people to suppose that
Reyes is lying about being involved it the crime at all?


I have no idea about the context of that. Could you provide a link?
It sounds like it might be hyperbole (she is known for a bit of that
now and then...). ;-)

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matias_Reyes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120502.asp

I'm finding hard to feel too sorry for those who were found guilty by
five unanimous juries. Coulter makes the point that if there was any
indication that the confessions were improperly obtained, they would
have been thrown out in the appeals process (which they weren't).

'Proper' is not a legal term of art. The tactics used
did not render the confessions inadmissible.

Here is how the confessions were obtained:

The suspects were separated and accused of the crime.
At first each denied involvement of knowledge of the crime.
After extensive questioning, each was told that one or more
of the others had already confessed to being an accessory,
but had named the suspect currently being questioned
as the ringleader. That suspect was then told that the
police suspected the OTHER suspect of being the true
ringlieader. They were then each told that the prosecution
would go easy on them IF they admitted their role and
implicated the others. Otherwise, each was told, he
was going to take the full blame for the crime based on
the testimony of his 'friend' who had ratted on him.

Using this tactic, some number (five IIRC) confessed,.

It is also commonplace for police to claim to have witnesses
who have identified the suspect(s), when in fact they do
not. IMHO these tactics are far more likely to elicit a
false confession than most people realize, because most
people imagine (correctly or not) that they would not
confess falsely under those circumstances. Perhaps
MOST people would not. But MOST people are never
interrogated as criminal suspects, and that is not due
to mere chance.


This particular article is more of an indictment of the media for
seemingly rooting for the criminals than it is of the guys who were
found guilty in this case (IMHO of course).

Rooting for Reyes? I don't think so.


...
An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).

Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.

Seriously? I typed "pay for votes" into google and got over 38,000
hits.

So? I googled "mark hickey apostle", and got over 55,000 hits.

Coool, I've been promoted.

Oh wait... I put my name in quotes and I'm down to 47 hits. Sigh...

I had a buddy who was paid to register dead people in Chicago,
for example.

He WAS, or he said he was? You see the problem
is that if we presume your buddy to be honest, then he
would not have done that, and if we presume him to be
dishonest then we cannot take his word for it.

BTW, Did you turn him in? If not, should we take your
word at face value?

If we are going to continue this, it ought to be posted
to misc.legal.moderated, do you think?

I guess I'll never really know if he did it or if it was just bravado
on his part.

Indeed.

Either way, I don't really need his direct testimony
(and/or conviction) to know that there are problems with the voting
process in Chicago.

"voter fraud" chicago - this search yields 186,000 hits.


Regardless, the issue in contention is your statement
that votes could be obtained "for a nominal payment
(examples abound)."

I inferred that you meant paying people to cast votes,
bu I'll allow as the more plausible phenomenon of
bribing people within the election system to
stuff the ballot box wold also count.

I had always assumed that fraudulent voting was motivated
by ideology, not money. But upon further reflection, the
latter does not seem implausible.

However, since examples abound, please cite a couple
of examples where voter fraud was purchased, rather than
volunteered.

--


FF

On Sep 9, 4:11 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.

You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha?

Smart enough to confuse you, it seems. Above, I suggest it should be
a piece of cake to show ONE quote where the administration claims a
link between 9/11 and Iraq. You agree, and post a link to WMD which
has nothing to do with 9/11. And you're STILL confused.

You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
with the 9/11 attack.

Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.

You do directly above.

Nope, never said that 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq.

Ever.




Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
"umpteum" examples out there...

I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.

I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.

It's a pure and noble calling.

Sadly, it's one that many have...

Mark "what passes for logic these days" Hickey- Hide quoted text -

Nice try, propoganda minister.

Oh wait, it wasn't

Just facts.

Mark "the only one I am called to be" Hickey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Nice try snipmeister.

You are a liar. Same sorts of lies your buddie tried, BTW.


Bertie