Gayle in MD
06-04-2012, 10:30 AM
<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">If this sort of thing had been written about Laura Bush – I would have found it just as abhorrent. Shame on you conservatives!
</div></div>I guess you were still in your hole during those 8 years. On this site alone gaylio did her best to mimic that behavior. To be honest quite a few things said on that site, gayle said the same about Laura. There were plenty of things said on that FB post that went even further than gayle would go but to think your side is innocent in the attack of Laura Bush is ridiculous.
I don't think the family should be attacked at all no matter if it is politics or not. I was guilty when Hitlary was the First Lady and I am sorry. However, ever since she suddenly became an NY resident she was fair game.
How do you carry that load of BS around, and still put one foot in front of another?
Laura Bush was a "do nothing" First Lady.
She also killed a young man on the road, by failing to yield the Right Of Way, and got completely off due to her Da Da's influence. I can not find any evidence that she was evver even in court!
She held her true opinions about Gay rights, and women's rights, a secret, until hubby was out of office, a complete failure of character.
I called her Smile-Nod Laura, for eight years, because that's about all that she did in eight years, other than travel, eat and read.
The worst thing I ever said about her was about a dress she wore, that the ugly dress which she had to run up to the private residence to change, during one of the Christmas Parties, because there was one other woman there with fashion taste poor enough to have bought and worn the same dress:
"The only thing missing was the curtain rod."
You can write all of the lies you want, Ed, we all know how much you lie on this forum, but there is no comparison between what is exampled in those kinds of attacks, and the sort of things I wrote about Laura Bush, AND IN FACT, I complimented Laura Bush, several times, when I felt some approval for a few things which she did.
Your own posts about The Kennedy Family, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Helen Thomas, President Obama, are far more along the lines of this disgusting clip.
But believe me, everyone here knows that you will NEVER own up to it.
Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 08:04 AM
<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">
That wasn't Uncle Ted, for one thing, that was Bobby Kennedy Jr, and he did want the wind mills, he just did not want them to impact one of the greatest tourist spots in the state,</div></div>Your memory is getting worse. They did not want to mess up their view and <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Uncle Ted was leading the way.</span><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>That wasn't Uncle Ted, for one thing, that was Bobby Kennedy Jr,</span> and he did want the wind mills, he just did not want them to impact one of the greatest tourist spots in the state,</div></div>Come on gayle, enough of the lies. I am waiting to see those posts where I talked about the Kennedy family. The subject was about the family of the President yet you have not been able to comprehend this. I already mentioned that I have said stuff about Hitlary and apologized but then said anything after her becoming senator is fair game. Hello McFly, are you enjoying playing the stupid part? You are good at it.
If you don't want to stick to the subject then back out and
You're rude, as usual, and wrong, as usual.
Bobby Kennedy Jr., was the main, and most outspoken opponent of the wind farms.
While Ted Kennedy was not for them either, and many, many residents were against them, as well, such as Walter Cronkite, Ted Kennedy was far from the main public spokesman against having the wind farms built so close to the shoreline, off the sound, and obstruct what is a National Historical Site, namely, the Kennedy Compound, and the impact on tourism there.
In fact, Bobby Kennedy was the main frontman, fully involved as THE spokesman, and an attorney for the opposition.
By John Stossel
It's windy enough on Massachusetts' Nantucket Sound — the waters between Cape Cod, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard — that it makes the Sound an ideal idea place for windmills that generate electricity.
Wind farms are popular in Europe and California, and environmentalists like them because they're a relatively clean way to produce electricity. It's a reason Jim Gordon proposes to install 130 wind turbines 6 ½ miles off the coast of Cape Cod.
But there's a problem.
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Although the Natural Resources Defense Council, and its attorney, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., support wind power (Kennedy says he's "strongly in favor of wind-energy production at sea,") Kennedy doesn't want a wind farm on Nantucket Sound, where his family might see it from their elegant compound in Hyannis Port.
Veteran newsman Walter Cronkite doesn't want Gordon's wind farm here either. Cronkite likes to sail on Nantucket Sound. He did a commercial for a group that's fighting the wind farm. In it, he says, "Our natural treasures should be off limits to industrialization and Nantucket Sound is one of those treasures."
His ad was paid for by the Alliance to Protect the Sound, which also supports wind power, but not on Nantucket Sound </span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>The group's president, Isaac Rosen, complains that the developers will "make a fortune," and says, "I think building turbines, building machinery in an area where people go to get away from industry, to get away from machinery is wrong." </span>
Is a wind farm is going to wreck that?
"I think building turbines, building machinery in an area where people go to get away from industry, to get away from machinery is wrong," Rosen said.
Gordon disagrees. He says his opponents "just don't want to live with a half-inch view off the horizon of wind turbines."
Rosen says Gordon and the developers are "trying to say, again, that it's just a bunch of rich people who are concerned with their views."
Don't they have a point?
Rosen said, "I think, you know, rich people and poor people have a right to our public resources."
At the marina, some people agreed, a wind farm would mar their public resources.
"I don't like it because I think it just ruins the natural beauty of the water," said one yacht owner.
Really? The "natural beauty" includes yachts like his, ferries, jet skis, all kinds of noisy boats. But a wind farm would ruin it?
Not in My Backyard Syndrome?
"That's the 'Not in My Backyard' syndrome again," one man told us.
Plenty of people like the idea of windmills. "Actually they look kind of cool!" one man said.
I agree. They look almost like sculpture. In Denmark they advertise them as a tourist attraction. But the opponents say windmills would do all kinds of terrible things.
Cronkite says in his commercial against the wind farm, "These massive wind turbines could disrupt the natural habitat for wildlife in the Sound and endanger boats."
Endanger boats? Makes me wonder how they miss ramming each other now. The windmills would hardly be a blockade. They'll be six to nine football fields apart from each other.
As ferry boat captain Richard Elrick puts it, "The turbines are gonna be placed so far apart that if any boater who's out there can't safely navigate around them, he ought not be out there sailing."
Walter Cronkite wouldn't do a TV interview, but on the phone told me, "Why shouldn't I be concerned? Who else will be concerned about my backyard?"
RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm
By Amanda Little
A long-simmering disagreement within the environmental community over a plan to build a massive wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, Mass., is now boiling over into a highly public quarrel.
The future of Nantucket Sound?
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The four-year-old battle started heating up last summer when Greenpeace USA staged a demonstration against well-known eco-activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who’s been an outspoken opponent of the proposal for a 130-turbine wind-power project in Horseshoe Shoal, a shallow portion of Nantucket Sound south of Cape Cod. Kennedy — a senior attorney at Natural Resources Defense Council and a pioneer in the waterway-protection movement — was on a sailboat for an event with the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes the wind project. A Greenpeace vessel cruised up alongside with a banner that read, “Bobby, you’re on the wrong boat” — a stunt that was part of a larger Greenpeace campaign pressuring Kennedy to change his mind on the development. (Hear audio from the Greenpeace/Kennedy confrontation.)</span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>In mid-December, Kennedy, wanting to explain his position to critics and the public at large, published an impassioned op-ed in The New York Times in which he argued that the wind farm would mar a precious seascape, privatize a publicly owned commons, and damage the local economy.</span>That, in turn, prompted about 150 environmental advocates — including global-warming authors and activists Bill McKibben and Ross Gelbspan, Bluewater Network founder Russell Long, and youth leader Billy Parish — to circulate a letter asking Kennedy to reconsider his position. “We are, simply put, in a state of ecological emergency,” it read. “Constructing windmills six miles from Cape Cod, where they will be visible as half-inch dots on the horizon, is the least that we can do.”
Signers of the letter also included “Death of Environmentalism” authors Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, who made the quarrel far more personal — and nasty — in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle last month. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>They called on Kennedy to step down from his position at NRDC, </span>and took a swipe at his famous family by criticizing “the privileged patricians of a generation for whom building mansions by the sea was indistinguishable from advocating for the preservation of national parks or big game hunting in the wilds of Africa.”
Kennedy shot back this week with his own opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, calling Shellenberger and Nordhaus’s attacks “dishonest vitriol.”
The venture at the center of all the fuss — the Cape Wind Project, being developed by Cape Wind Associates — would be the first major offshore wind installation in the U.S., and one of the largest wind farms in the world. It would produce enough electricity to meet nearly 75 percent of demand on Cape Cod and nearby islands Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, with peak output of 420 megawatts.
The permitting process for the project, which began in 2001, is nearing completion, and Cape Wind is widely expected to get the green light from the Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service within a year. If state permits for the sea-bottom transmission lines are obtained, as expected, construction on the wind farm could begin mid-2007 and be completed in roughly two years.
The Humane Society of the United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, and a handful of local and state conservation groups have raised concerns about Cape Wind. On the other hand, a number of major national environmental groups have been supportive, including Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, and NRDC. Some, though, are waiting to officially endorse the project until the final environmental impact statement comes out later this year and clears up uncertainties about avian impacts and other issues.
“Most of the data so far on possible environmental impacts has been very encouraging, but there are still questions we want answered,” said Nathanael Greene, NRDC’s renewable-energy expert. “Our position currently is cautious enthusiasm. It’s a historic proposal with incontrovertible benefits.” The group’s comments on Cape Wind’s environmental impact statement characterized the project as “the largest single source of supply-side reductions in CO2 currently proposed in the United States, and perhaps in the world.” NRDC reiterated its position on the wind farm in a statement released the day Kennedy’s New York Times op-ed was published.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>
In his op-ed, Kennedy contended that “[h]undreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore … [and] the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands.”</span>
He framed the debate as a clash between industry and wilderness: “[S]ome places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn’t build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound … All of us need periodically to experience wilderness to renew our spirits and reconnect ourselves to the common history of our nation, humanity, and to God.”
Kennedy agreed last Friday to meet with representatives from the group of letter writers to discuss their request, but indicated in an interview this week with Muckraker that he doesn’t intend to change his position — rather, he hopes to convince his critics to change theirs. “It’s dangerous for environmentalists to have the knee-jerk reaction that all wind power must be good,” he said.
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Kennedy said in the interview that his primary concern is not the project’s impact on wild sea life and ocean views, but the economic impact it would have on the local fishing community. “It will evict more than 100 of Cape Cod’s treasured commercial fishermen who run sustainable operations from their traditional fishing grounds, and destroy their livelihood,” he said, explaining that their nets would get tangled in the electric cables on the seabed. According to Kennedy, the project could have an over $1 billion impact on the local fishing industry and the tourist economy, given the blighted views and obstacles it would pose to the thousands of recreational sailors who visit Nantucket Sound annually.
“I think it’s a big mistake for environmentalists to alienate our natural allies like commercial fishermen and boaters, who have long been strong supporters,” he said. He argued that the hard feelings and publicity surrounding Cape Wind could tarnish the reputation of wind energy nationally. “This is a very badly sited project that will end up hurting the battle against global warming, not advancing it,” he said.
If the turbines were built five miles farther beyond the coastline (they are now currently planned for about six miles offshore), where they wouldn’t interfere with fishing interests, Kennedy said he could back the project. He also said he supported offshore wind projects in other regions that would pose less of an economic and environmental threat, including two that have been proposed for offshore areas near Long Island and New Jersey.</span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>“I never intended to be a champion on this issue,” he said, alluding to pressure from Greenpeace that forced him to defend his position. “There are plenty of places to put windmills, and plenty of projects I will support. But there’s only one Horseshoe Shoal. You can’t move your fishing ground somewhere else.”</span>
Cape Wind Avengers
Cape Wind CEO Jim Gordon told Muckraker that environmental reviews of the project refute many of Kennedy’s claims about the potential environmental hazards and noise pollution. Cape Wind and its backers also argue that the development would pose minimal harm to the fishing community, noting that the cables carrying the electricity back to shore would be embedded six feet under the seabed.
Some proponents of the project argue that it could actually attract tourists who would want to see the nation’s most ambitious symbol of a clean-energy future. (It’s not as nutty as it sounds — offshore wind installations in Ireland and Denmark have proved a boon to tourism, not a setback.)
The developers say there is no viable location for the project other than the shallow waters of Nantucket Sound. “Any farther out would be cost-prohibitive,” said Gordon. “The challenge for this project is to demonstrate that wind power is not only environmentally safe, but commercially viable.”
Even if there were an alternative site, advocates say, redesigning and re-permitting would delay the project several more years.
“We simply don’t have that kind of time,” said McKibben, “given widespread predictions that the climate crisis could be irreversible in 10 years without substantial reductions in carbon output.”
Gelbspan argued that even if the turbines were to deprive 100 or more fishers of their jobs, “The calculus is not hard: that is a more-than-reasonable trade-off. This landmark project would offset approximately 880,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, the equivalent of keeping over 150,000 vehicles off the road. What’s more, it would create between 600 and 1,000 new jobs, and be a crucial springboard for fast-tracking renewable-energy development in America.” He added that state officials, as well as the project developers, should be obligated to help any fishers who lose their livelihoods through buyouts, retraining, or assistance in finding new fishing grounds.
To John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA, the debate comes down to weighing local NIMBY concerns against global climate concerns. “I respect people who wage NIMBY battles — the environmental movement was founded on people protecting their local, sacred areas,” he said. “But today, solving the climate crisis has become so urgent that it trumps NIMBYism. It’s as simple as that.”
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>A Long and Windy Road
Several Cape Wind advocates praised Kennedy as one of the most charismatic and influential leaders in the environmental community. Yet they raised concerns that his leadership on this issue would be hobbled if he appeared unwilling to make certain sacrifices.
Said Gelbspan, “Kennedy’s decision to counterpose such extraordinarily unequal consequences — the wind farm’s negative impact on coastal views and local fishermen versus its critical role in forging climate-change solutions — bespeaks a lack of understanding of the consequences of escalating climate change.”
Kennedy vehemently rejected the notion that he doesn’t take the climate crisis seriously. “There is nobody in this country who is more concerned about global warming than me, nobody,” he told Muckraker.
Indeed, Kennedy has helped bring mainstream visibility to the climate issue through lectures, fund-raisers, and rallies. He even played a role in convincing FOX News to air a surprisingly scientific special on climate change in November, in which he appeared as a correspondent (much to the consternation of right-wing pundits).
Kennedy also said he was emphatically opposed to an amendment unveiled by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) last month that would prohibit all major offshore wind installations from being sited within one and a half miles of a commercial shipping route, even though it would block the Cape Wind project. Young attached the amendment to the Coast Guard budget bill, which is expected to be voted on in February.
Yet even if Young’s amendment doesn’t pass, other congressional efforts to thwart Cape Wind are likely to follow in this final year of the project’s permitting process.
The fight over Cape Wind is far from finished.</span>
Big Wind Farm Off Cape Cod Gets Approval
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: April 28, 2010
BOSTON — After nine years of regulatory review, the federal government gave the green light on Wednesday to the nation’s first offshore wind farm, a fiercely contested project off the coast of Cape Cod.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announcing approval of the contentious wind farm project.
Cape Cod Residents Don’t Expect One Ruling to End Long Fight (April 29, 2010)
Cape Cod Project Is Crucial Step for U.S. Wind Industry (April 27, 2010)
Pressure Is Building on Disputed Wind Farm (April 26, 2010)
Times Topic: Wind Power
The New York Times
Opponents said they would continue to fight construction of the farm, known as Cape Wind, which would sprawl across 25 square miles of Nantucket Sound.
But the decision is expected to give a significant boost to the nascent offshore wind industry in the United States, which has lagged far behind Europe and China in harnessing the strong and steady power of ocean breezes to electrify homes and businesses.
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>“This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic Coast,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said at a news conference here in the Massachusetts Statehouse with Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat and supporter of the venture, at his side. </span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>In announcing the much-anticipated decision, Mr. Salazar hastened to add that he was requiring the developer, Cape Wind Associates, to take several steps to mitigate possibly adverse effects on the environment — including views from the Kennedy Compound National Historic Landmark, which overlooks Nantucket Sound. Those steps include adjusting the turbines’ color and configuration. </span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Opposition to the proposal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who died in August, had been a major thorn in the Obama administration’s side in advancing the project. </span>
The Cape Wind farm would lie about 5.2 miles from the nearest shore, on the mainland, and about 13.8 miles from Nantucket Island. The tip of the highest blade of each turbine would reach 440 feet above the water.
The long-running struggle over the project underscores how divisive even a “clean” energy project can be in the United States.
Friends and foes have squared off over the impact it would have on nature, local traditions, property values and electricity bills; on the profits to be pocketed by a private developer; and even the urgency of easing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, a priority of the Obama administration.
Opponents argued that Cape Wind would create an industrial eyesore in a pristine area; supporters countered that it was worth sacrificing aesthetics for the longer-term goal of producing clean, renewable energy.
Developers say that Cape Wind will provide 75 percent of the power for Cape Cod, Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard — the equivalent of that produced by a medium-size coal-fired plant. It would also reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of taking 175,000 cars off the road, officials said, and provide 1,000 construction jobs.
The project has also made for some strange bedfellows. Cape Wind is backed by both Greenpeace and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
It has been opposed perhaps most prominently by members of the Kennedy family. Senator Kennedy was a longtime sailor on Nantucket Sound and fought the project up until he died.
In a nod to the concerns of the Kennedys — and presumably other property owners in the area — Mr. Salazar said he had ordered Cape Wind to limit the number of turbines to 130 instead of the initial 170, to move the farm farther away from Nantucket and to reduce its breadth to make it less visible from the Nantucket Historic District.
Mr. Salazar said that the turbines should also be painted off-white to reduce their contrast with the sea and sky while still remaining visible to birds and that their lights should be turned off during the day and dimmed more at night than originally planned.
Officials said Mr. Salazar had told them that he planned to call Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the senator’s widow, to discuss his decision.
Still, in Mr. Salazar’s assessment, the view from the Kennedy compound was not a big issue, and he noted that Nantucket was hardly an untouched landscape, with busy marine transport and fishing, and tall structures including communications equipment.
Mr. Kennedy’s nephew Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, could not be reached for comment on Wednesday. But he told FoxNews.com on Tuesday that Cape Wind was “a boondoggle of the worst kind.”
“It’s going to cost the people of Massachusetts $4 billion over the next 20 years in extra costs,” he said.
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>In agreement with the Kennedys was Senator Scott Brown, a Republican who succeeded Edward Kennedy. He said Cape Wind was “misguided” and would hurt tourism and boating in the area.
Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, has lent only mild support to the project — in part, officials said, out of In agreement with the Kennedys was Senator Scott Brown, a Republican who succeeded Edward Kennedy. He said Cape Wind was “misguided” and would hurt tourism and boating in the area. </span>deference to Senator Kennedy’s objections. Mr. Kerry said Wednesday that the government had conducted an exhaustive review and that he had faith in the process.
Mr. Salazar sought to project an air of finality with his announcement, declaring at one point, “This is the final decision of the United States of America.”
Governor Patrick said construction could begin within a year. “We are on our way,” he said.
Nonetheless, questions remained about when and even if the Cape Wind project would be built. Opponents vowed to seek an immediate injunction to stop it, although after nine years, the courts may decide that it has been reviewed enough.
Another potential barrier lies with the Federal Aviation Administration, which has yet to make a final ruling on the safety of the project. It has rated Cape Wind a “presumed hazard” because of the potential for interference with airplane radar. It had earlier approved the plan, but that decision lapsed because of delays.
Moreover, Cape Wind has not signed a final purchase power agreement for a utility to carry its power to customers. But Tom King, president of National Grid, the utility company that covers the area, said in a statement that negotiations with Cape Wind were “going very well, and we are optimistic that we will have more to say about our progress in the near future.”
Serious questions of cost and financing remain. Cape Wind has not disclosed the cost of building the offshore farm, though others have put the price tag at $1 billion.
Foes further warn that customers will pay two or three times what they pay now for conventional forms of electricity because of large start-up costs, which will include the installation of a vast infrastructure in the seabed.
The Interior Department also met with resistance from two Wampanoag tribes, who have said the turbines would interfere with their sacred ceremonies and submerged burial grounds. Mr. Salazar has ordered Cape Wind to take steps to mitigate those problems, including further archeological surveys.
But Audra Parker, president and chief executive of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, said all of the mitigating steps were not enough. “They’re absolutely trivial,” she said. “The only effective mitigation is relocation to alternative site.”
She said that nine state and local permits were still being appealed in the courts and several parties had filed notices of intention to sue.
Still, those backing other offshore wind farms along the East Coast hailed Mr. Salazar’s decision as a crucial milestone in their cause.
Kevin Law, president and chief executive of the Long Island Power Authority, the nation’s second largest public utility, said it would have “enormous beneficial ramifications” for his own proposal — a wind farm 13 miles off the coast of the Rockaways in Queens that would be big enough to generate twice as much electricity as Cape Wind.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>As you can see, Uncle Ted was NOT <span style='font-size: 20pt'>leading the way</span>, Bobby Kennedy Jr., was the main spokesman against destroying fishing and tourism in the area.
If you don't know anything about the subject, you shoud read up before you make your ignorance known on such a grand scale, and with insults, yet, for those who obviously know and recall far more accurately what happened, and exactly who the leader of the protest actually was, IOW, recalls far better than you do.
Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 08:43 AM
<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">
While Ted Kennedy was not for them either,</div></div>Thanks for admitting you were wrong. Now back to the subject, when are you going to admit to your lies about my statements of the Kennedy family? Are you ever going to own up to them? It is quite clear you cannot comprehend the english written language so let me dumb this down for you...you said that I said things about the Kennedy family. I am saying I did not and only referred to the murderous uncle Ted. You made the lie, prove it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your memory is getting worse. They did not want to mess up their view and Uncle Ted was leading the way. </div></div>
As I said, everyone here knows you can never admit to being wrong.
Ted Kennedy, was NOT leading the way, and you completely misrepresented the facts surrounding the enntire issue of opposition to the wind farms off that coast, there were many reasons, and many people, who were against the original plan, not just the Kennedy Family, and Ted, was NOT the "out front" leader of the opposition, as my quoted material proves.
Again, the leader of the opposition, was Bobby Kennedy, NOT Ted.
as for your rude request, I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove your own lies and rude comments to you, since you have such a poor memory you can't even recall what you have written, yourself!
Proving anything to you is impossible. You can't read, for one thing. Additionally, as Sofla just wrote in another thread, you version of statements and events, is completely out of the realm of reality.
As Sofla just wrote....in so many words, you live in a fantasy world of your own making, along with your buddies.
I know what you wrote about Ted Kennedy, and about Bill and Hillary, and all of your attacks on them were lies, just as all of your attacks against other members here, are lies.
You are just plain RUDE! That's your nature!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.