PDA

View Full Version : WASH POST: US has boots on the ground in Libya!



LWW
08-25-2011, 10:05 AM
http://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gifhttp://www.publiusforum.com/images/obama-uhoh.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Obama administration has sent teams of CIA operatives into Libya in a rush to gather intelligence on the identities and capabilities of rebel forces opposed to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, according to U.S. officials. </div></div>

IT'S LIKE A NIGHTMARE ISN'T IT ... IT KEEPS GETTING WORSER AND WORSER ... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-libya-cia-is-gathering-intelligence-on-rebels/2011/03/30/AFLyb25B_story.html)

Soflasnapper
08-25-2011, 10:13 AM
Intelligence operatives from the CIA are in many countries. If that's all that are there, in terms of US personnel, we correctly call that 'no combat troops in country.' That was true even in the early days of Vietnam, when we had 16,000 military 'advisors' (many of them CIA). Even with that large a group in country, still, JFK's top advisors kept urging him to commit ground troops in actual combat roles.

Surprisingly to you, I suppose, he didn't respond 'we already have combat troops engaged,' referring to the 16,000 men in country, because that wasn't what his advisors were referring to when they said ground troops in combat roles.

We do not refer to intelligence operatives doing intelligence work as engaging in combat, nor is that what is meant by 'boots on the ground,' which refers to deployed combat troops in country.

Recycling these weak claims that were fully aired and shown false 5 months ago is extraordinarily weak.

We rate this attempt to show Gayle wrong in her statement as FAIL, and award the dreaded Four Pinnochios.

LWW
08-25-2011, 10:19 AM
TRANSLATED:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Charlotte and I have no cogent defense against El Dub's airtight case ... so we will Alinskyize the discussion and redefine "BOOTS ON THE GROUND" to be something other than boots on the ground, then declare victory.</div></div>

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 10:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Intelligence operatives from the CIA are in many countries. If that's all that are there, in terms of US personnel, we correctly call that 'no combat troops in country.' That was true even in the early days of Vietnam, when we had 16,000 military 'advisors' (many of them CIA). Even with that large a group in country, still, JFK's top advisors kept urging him to commit ground troops in actual combat roles.

Surprisingly to you, I suppose, he didn't respond 'we already have combat troops engaged,' referring to the 16,000 men in country, because that wasn't what his advisors were referring to when they said ground troops in combat roles.

We do not refer to intelligence operatives doing intelligence work as engaging in combat, nor is that what is meant by 'boots on the ground,' which refers to deployed combat troops in country.

Recycling these weak claims that were fully aired and shown false 5 months ago is extraordinarily weak.

We rate this attempt to show Gayle wrong in her statement as FAIL, and award the dreaded Four Pinnochios. </div></div>

LOL, let's make sure we extend those four Pinnochios to Ed, as well. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Two delusional righties with "Pants On Fire" designations.


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

eg8r
08-25-2011, 11:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we correctly call that 'no combat troops in country.' </div></div>Before you start to defend someone you should at least take a moment to make sure you know what you are defending. Gayle was much more general in "boots on the ground". However, these operatives are working a combat mission so while you might think they are different you would be quite wrong.

eg8r

eg8r
08-25-2011, 11:46 AM
LOL, sure and you are the new lapdog. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif wolfie would be proud of you.

eg8r

LWW
08-25-2011, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we correctly call that 'no combat troops in country.' </div></div>Before you start to defend someone you should at least take a moment to make sure you know what you are defending. Gayle was much more general in "boots on the ground". However, these operatives are working a combat mission so while you might think they are different you would be quite wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

As charlotte was quote at the very top of the thread ... the claim was that Obama had placed no American boots on the ground in Libya.

That being said ... it is great comedy to watch the leftists squirm.

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 12:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we correctly call that 'no combat troops in country.' </div></div>Before you start to defend someone you should at least take a moment to make sure you know what you are defending. Gayle was much more general in "boots on the ground". However, these operatives are working a combat mission so while you might think they are different you would be quite wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

I was not general, at all. The fact is, neither you, or your equally irrational buddy, understands the term, "Boots on the ground."

End of story.

G.

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we correctly call that 'no combat troops in country.' </div></div>Before you start to defend someone you should at least take a moment to make sure you know what you are defending. Gayle was much more general in "boots on the ground". However, these operatives are working a combat mission so while you might think they are different you would be quite wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

As charlotte was quote at the very top of the thread ... the claim was that Obama had placed no American boots on the ground in Libya.

That being said ... it is great comedy to watch the leftists squirm. </div></div>

LMAO! I've been laughing at your Bs thread titles for years.

Back to ignore, Sherlock, you're too easy to blow away with a tiny bit of effort.

G.

LWW
08-25-2011, 12:26 PM
TRANSLATED:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://rashmanly.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/liberals-of-the-looney-left.jpg

End of story.

G. </div></div>

eg8r
08-25-2011, 12:44 PM
She will have to keep moving the line if she is ever going to successfully defend her incorrect assertion.

eg8r

eg8r
08-25-2011, 12:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back to ignore</div></div>So I guess this means the broken record will be sticking her head back in the sand.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-25-2011, 12:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back to ignore</div></div>So I guess this means the broken record will be sticking her head back in the sand.

eg8r </div></div>

No, it means you bore me, because you are immature, and uninformed.

G.

Bye now....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
08-25-2011, 01:00 PM
LOL, and there you have it folks, the broken record has inserted her head in the sand.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-25-2011, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She will have to keep moving the line if she is ever going to successfully defend her incorrect assertion.

eg8r </div></div>

Her assertion was correct.

Boots on the ground means personnel on the ground under military command. CIA officers are not under military command. US ambassadors are not 'boots on the ground,' either.

Google search for 'boots on the ground meaning.' (http://www.google.com/search?q=boots+on+the+ground&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=N80&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=boots+on+the+ground+meaning&revid=994735462&sa=X&ei=wqBWTvf4AtLqgQfjvfG1DA&ved=0CG0Q1QIoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1d753b302b4e010e&biw=1680&bih=783)

LWW
08-25-2011, 01:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She will have to keep moving the line if she is ever going to successfully defend her incorrect assertion.

eg8r </div></div>

Her assertion was correct.

Boots on the ground means personnel on the ground under military command. CIA officers are not under military command. US ambassadors are not 'boots on the ground,' either.

Google search for 'boots on the ground meaning.' (http://www.google.com/search?q=boots+on+the+ground&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=N80&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=boots+on+the+ground+meaning&revid=994735462&sa=X&ei=wqBWTvf4AtLqgQfjvfG1DA&ved=0CG0Q1QIoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1d753b302b4e010e&biw=1680&bih=783) </div></div>

Then by that definition all Americans who wer boots are combat troops?

Your desperation is humorous.

eg8r
08-25-2011, 01:46 PM
You guys can play whatever game makes you feel better but you are completely ignoring our Marines and I am sure they would take offense.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-25-2011, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She will have to keep moving the line if she is ever going to successfully defend her incorrect assertion.

eg8r </div></div>

Her assertion was correct.

Boots on the ground means personnel on the ground under military command. CIA officers are not under military command. US ambassadors are not 'boots on the ground,' either.

Google search for 'boots on the ground meaning.' (http://www.google.com/search?q=boots+on+the+ground&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=N80&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=boots+on+the+ground+meaning&revid=994735462&sa=X&ei=wqBWTvf4AtLqgQfjvfG1DA&ved=0CG0Q1QIoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1d753b302b4e010e&biw=1680&bih=783) </div></div>

Then by that definition all Americans who we[a]r boots are combat troops?

Your desperation is humorous. </div></div>

No, I'd say your humor is desperate.

Since there are no US military personnel in country at all, there are no boots on the ground, whether in combat or not.

eg8r
08-25-2011, 03:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Boots on the ground means personnel on the ground under military command.</div></div>Your definition here absolutely includes the CIA operatives "on the ground". This is a military mission and these operatives are following the direction of the military. THey are not there wandering around all willy nilly. They have a mission and that was provided to them by the military.

eg8r

LWW
08-25-2011, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back to ignore</div></div>So I guess this means the broken record will be sticking her head back in the sand.

eg8r </div></div>

No, it means you bore me, because you are immature, and uninformed.

G.

Bye now....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

No, it means that you have factually had your arse served to you on a platter, sliced off by the sharp blade of truth, and exposed to be the hyper-partisan agitprop that I have always know you to be ... and you hope to now run away and wait for people to forget the ferocious intellectual bankruptcy you have displayed.

Never fear though snookums ... I'll be here to point out your next foolish claim.

LWW
08-25-2011, 04:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Boots on the ground means personnel on the ground under military command.</div></div>Your definition here absolutely includes the CIA operatives "on the ground". This is a military mission and these operatives are following the direction of the military. THey are not there wandering around all willy nilly. They have a mission and that was provided to them by the military.

eg8r </div></div>

He will defend dear leader, and his queen, at the expense of his dignity ... every time.

Soflasnapper
08-25-2011, 05:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Boots on the ground means personnel on the ground under military command.</div></div>Your definition here absolutely includes the CIA operatives "on the ground". This is a military mission and these operatives are following the direction of the military. THey are not there wandering around all willy nilly. They have a mission and that was provided to them by the military.

eg8r </div></div>

Perhaps, but I doubt that.

It's more likely that actual uniformed officers are working under CIA orders (and military cover) than the opposite. Unless these are DIA or ONI, etc., intelligence operatives, in which case then I would agree with you.

By your theory, the NSA is under military authority, because their assets are tasked to perform surveillance important to on-going military operations. But that isn't so, and I would argue, nor is it the case with CIA assets.

Yes, they are all part of the national security apparatus, but that includes multiple lines of authority and differing chains of command.

Soflasnapper
08-25-2011, 05:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She will have to keep moving the line if she is ever going to successfully defend her incorrect assertion.

eg8r </div></div>

Her assertion was correct.

Boots on the ground means personnel on the ground under military command. CIA officers are not under military command. US ambassadors are not 'boots on the ground,' either.

Google search for 'boots on the ground meaning.' (http://www.google.com/search?q=boots+on+the+ground&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=N80&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=boots+on+the+ground+meaning&revid=994735462&sa=X&ei=wqBWTvf4AtLqgQfjvfG1DA&ved=0CG0Q1QIoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1d753b302b4e010e&biw=1680&bih=783) </div></div>

Then by that definition all Americans who wer boots are combat troops?

Your desperation is humorous. </div></div>

Look into a figure of speech known as synedoche and then get back to me. 'Boots' is a figure of speech, not a literal term.

Sev
08-25-2011, 06:37 PM
I have never seen US troops in tennis sneakers.

Qtec
08-25-2011, 07:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She will have to keep moving the line if she is ever going to successfully defend her incorrect assertion.

eg8r </div></div>

Her assertion was correct.

Boots on the ground means personnel on the ground under military command. CIA officers are not under military command. US ambassadors are not 'boots on the ground,' either.

Google search for 'boots on the ground meaning.' (http://www.google.com/search?q=boots+on+the+ground&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=N80&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=boots+on+the+ground+meaning&revid=994735462&sa=X&ei=wqBWTvf4AtLqgQfjvfG1DA&ved=0CG0Q1QIoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1d753b302b4e010e&biw=1680&bih=783) </div></div>

Then by that definition all Americans who wer boots are combat troops?

Your desperation is humorous. </div></div>

Look into a figure of speech known as synedoche and then get back to me. 'Boots' is a figure of speech, not a literal term. </div></div>

Its quite evident to even a moron that 'boots on the ground' means 'troops on the ground'.

CIA is everywhere.

Q

LWW
08-26-2011, 03:17 AM
It is quite evident that a common moron, much like yourself, will accept whatever word parsed version of NEWSPEAK is needed to advance the agenda and save face for dear leader ... and do so with slavish obedience.

eg8r
08-26-2011, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps, but I doubt that.

It's more likely that actual uniformed officers are working under CIA orders (and military cover) than the opposite.</div></div>So you think NATO is passing on the "plan" to the CIA and then the CIA is deploying the military? I think you definitely got this all backwards.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By your theory, the NSA is under military authority, because their assets are tasked to perform surveillance important to on-going military operations. But that isn't so, and I would argue, nor is it the case with CIA assets.

</div></div>If it is a military mission, and the military is paying for the effort then you are absolutely wrong. In that specific instance those non-military personnel are under the direction of the military. In the business world this would be called a matrixed heirarchical structure. On that specific task, we will call it a "program", they are under the command of the military. In their functional role and other duties they would fall under the command of their local/direct management. Since my entire career has been spent in the defense industry that happens to be all I have experience with but I will tell you it is EXTREMELY common.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, they are all part of the national security apparatus, but that includes multiple lines of authority and differing chains of command.

</div></div>Speaking in a purely functional point of view that is correct, but you are absolutely incorrect when referring to a specific program or activity. To put this in terms you might be more aware of think about a homicide in a small town that involves a man on the FBI's most wanted list. The local sheriff will be in control all the way up to the point that the FBI shows up. At that point the FBI will take control, including FBI agents AND local police department. The local officers ultimately report to their sherriff, however in matters pertaining to the specific case they report to the FBI. In this example the local officers will not be considered FBI but they are considered BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

eg8r

eg8r
08-26-2011, 08:29 AM
Well, I disagree with the "and his queen" part if you are referring to gayle. From what I can tell, gayle is following sofla and given the history of both, sofla is the only one out of the two of them that uses rational thought. He is the only one of the two of them that actually provides his own point of view and then if needed or requested will provide his supporting articles/blogs/wiki, etc.

Gayle is the complete opposite. She has zero initial individual thought on anything. She will read an article, believe the author right away without any additional investigation and then come here and defend it to the death. Amazingly enough and hard to believe but Gayle has actually turned into the lapdog now that wolfie hasn't been around. I don't suspect it to stay that way forever but in the past couple days she showed strong resemblances.

eg8r

LWW
08-26-2011, 08:32 AM
I think that you have no clue how US command structure works ... US forces are not under NATO comand first off.

Second ... NATO has relied heavily on the US for bombing intel.

I wonder why?

What's that?

Because we had boots on the ground?

LWW
08-26-2011, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I disagree with the "and his queen" part if you are referring to gayle. From what I can tell, gayle is following sofla and given the history of both, sofla is the only one out of the two of them that uses rational thought. He is the only one of the two of them that actually provides his own point of view and then if needed or requested will provide his supporting articles/blogs/wiki, etc.

Gayle is the complete opposite. She has zero initial individual thought on anything. She will read an article, believe the author right away without any additional investigation and then come here and defend it to the death. Amazingly enough and hard to believe but Gayle has actually turned into the lapdog now that wolfie hasn't been around. I don't suspect it to stay that way forever but in the past couple days she showed strong resemblances.

eg8r </div></div>

He is more polished at it, I'll give you that.

But once you look deeper than the shine ... the both toe the exact same lie for the same master.

eg8r
08-26-2011, 08:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that you have no clue how US command structure works ... US forces are not under NATO comand first off.

</div></div>Nope, I understand it quite well. Thanks.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-26-2011, 10:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I disagree with the "and his queen" part if you are referring to gayle. From what I can tell, gayle is following sofla and given the history of both, sofla is the only one out of the two of them that uses rational thought. He is the only one of the two of them that actually provides his own point of view and then if needed or requested will provide his supporting articles/blogs/wiki, etc.

Gayle is the complete opposite. She has zero initial individual thought on anything. She will read an article, believe the author right away without any additional investigation and then come here and defend it to the death. Amazingly enough and hard to believe but Gayle has actually turned into the lapdog now that wolfie hasn't been around. I don't suspect it to stay that way forever but in the past couple days she showed strong resemblances.

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO! What good is it providing documentation to a moron who STILL insists that Valarie Plame was just a secretary!

I provided documentation for years on this website, while you Bushies attacked me for saying that Bush would destroy this country.

YOU ARE THE MINDLESS PARROTS, not us, our predictions have been correct, and you righties were wrong, wrong, wrong about EVERYTHING from the WMD, to the "Christian" nature of the torturing Bush Administration of War Criminals who destroyed our honor, our dignity, our reputation around the world, our surplus and our entire economy.

The whole world agrees with us, while only the nutty 23 percent of Repiglicans, (another term that LWW stole from ME, one among MANY, BTW!)who deny everything that has been prvoen, and hence, they can't address the FACT that Bush et al, can't leave the country for fear of being jailed for their War Crimes.

No amount of PROOF, phases you righties, hence, you deny Climate Change.

You deny the Theory of Evolution!

You either denied, or supported, every broken law, every unConstitutional act, and every proven lie, and War Crime, by the Bush/Cheney fascist administration.

You righties are beyond documented FACTS, and live off your party fantasies.

AND, Sofla and I agreed on most things many years ago, before he was Sofla, FYI, during all those years when I gave a damn what you righties thought, and posted documentation for years, which didn't phase any of the Bushies, including YOU.

I no longer find any of you worthy of my time, since you all deny facts, as a way of life.

I've documented everything that supports my views, over and over, years ago, right here.

It's all in the Archives, unlike like any of your RW twisted claims, from the RW "Think Tanks" and Fux Noise.

You parrots deny the findings of the CBO, America's 16 agencies which comprise our National Security Estimate, the global review of the war criminals in both Bush's, and Reagan administrations, NATO, The United Nations, AND over 90% of the Scientists in the world.

Who gives a flying **** what any of you nutjobs think.

I am so far beyond your convoluted absurdities, in my studies, I'm not going to waste my time providing documentation, for sheep, while watching you, on the dole from the Federal Government, bashing Government spending, for anyone else but YOU, of course, and pretending that Federal "Spending" is the whole problem, while you cash your own check, compliments of the Federal Government.

Nor do any of your AZ Tourettes inflicted, internet cowboys, Bubbas from the Flyover States, fit throwing, Tourettes barking, RW nutjobs, who never read a book, before opening your trap, phase me one bit, because I could bury all of you under my library. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

I gave up on trying to debate with the Fux Noise, Bushy sheep, long ago. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif


Now I just read the titles and laugh my ass off.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

It's a real comedy show on here. Hard to figure out which one of you righties is farthest out in space!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
G.

eg8r
08-26-2011, 10:16 AM
LOL, and that was a great example of a waste of stream of consciousness, or in other words diarreah of the brain.

eg8r