Comments on: Material Support http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/ Welcome to the Machine Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:50:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Megabrad http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1671 Megabrad Sat, 24 Feb 2007 06:22:59 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1671 Aha! There's the 'ol liberal KOOL AID! Aha! There’s the ‘ol liberal KOOL AID!

]]> By: Frederick http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1665 Frederick Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:16 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1665 <img src="http://mccs1977.com/Images/Politics/Kool-AidMan.jpg" alt="kool-aid man" /> <p>Still no evidence, Tj?</p> kool-aid man

Still no evidence, Tj?

]]> By: TJ's Anti-contrarian Blog http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1664 TJ's Anti-contrarian Blog Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:56:52 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1664 Yes, by all means, silence all dissenting views. Enjoy the Groupthink. How very typically liberal of you to suggest it. Yes, by all means, silence all dissenting views. Enjoy the Groupthink.

How very typically liberal of you to suggest it.

]]> By: Bill http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1657 Bill Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:36:19 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1657 Fred: It may be time for the administrator to moderate TJ out of the discussion. He seems impervious to the facts, and unable to discuss the actual topic. Fred:

It may be time for the administrator to moderate TJ out of the discussion. He seems impervious to the facts, and unable to discuss the actual topic.

]]> By: Frederick http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1655 Frederick Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:36:41 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1655 Stop saying nothing and prove something. Where is the evidence? Stop saying nothing and prove something. Where is the evidence?

]]> By: TJ's Anti-contrarian Blog http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1654 TJ's Anti-contrarian Blog Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:33:02 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1654 Fred posted the quote: …the charge that Pelosi requested — or demanded — a specific plane, as GOP lawmakers have claimed, is baseless. To the contrary, House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood explained that it was he who requested Pelosi have access to military aircraft capable of flying nonstop between Washington, D.C., and California. Further, the Los Angeles Times reported on February 8 that Pelosi’s press secretary, Brendan Daly, has denied that the speaker “requested a specific plane,” and on the February 8 edition of MSNBC News Live, NBC News congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira reported that “there’s really no evidence that Pelosi specifically asked for … this 757.” Fred, is it your naivete or willing blindness that allows you to miss the parsing of words in your own post. Remember when Bill Clinton wondered about the definition of "is"? Terms like “requested a specific plane,” and “there’s really no evidence that Pelosi specifically asked for … this 757” should set off the alarms. They never said she didn't ask for a bigger plane, just not "that one" or "a 757". I already explained the Sgt-at-Arms comment. Fred posted the quote:
…the charge that Pelosi requested — or demanded — a specific plane, as GOP lawmakers have claimed, is baseless. To the contrary, House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood explained that it was he who requested Pelosi have access to military aircraft capable of flying nonstop between Washington, D.C., and California. Further, the Los Angeles Times reported on February 8 that Pelosi’s press secretary, Brendan Daly, has denied that the speaker “requested a specific plane,” and on the February 8 edition of MSNBC News Live, NBC News congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira reported that “there’s really no evidence that Pelosi specifically asked for … this 757.”

Fred, is it your naivete or willing blindness that allows you to miss the parsing of words in your own post. Remember when Bill Clinton wondered about the definition of “is”?
Terms like “requested a specific plane,” and “there’s really no evidence that Pelosi specifically asked for … this 757” should set off the alarms. They never said she didn’t ask for a bigger plane, just not “that one” or “a 757″. I already explained the Sgt-at-Arms comment.

]]> By: navyswan http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1650 navyswan Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:34:42 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1650 Anyway, isn't what they did pretty much treasonous whether or not we are at war with Iran (which we aren't, yet)? From what I understand, they didn't have Congressional authority to be doing any of the underhanded stuff they did during the Iran-Contra affair. Shouldn't that have at least been impeachable? And why are these criminals allowed to run our government? Anyway, isn’t what they did pretty much treasonous whether or not we are at war with Iran (which we aren’t, yet)?

From what I understand, they didn’t have Congressional authority to be doing any of the underhanded stuff they did during the Iran-Contra affair. Shouldn’t that have at least been impeachable? And why are these criminals allowed to run our government?

]]> By: navyswan http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1649 navyswan Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:29:20 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1649 Moonie Times lol Btw, is this the new angle the rightwingnuts are using to try to wrangle support for a US attack on Iran? It seems to be. What would this be, plan C? Moonie Times lol

Btw, is this the new angle the rightwingnuts are using to try to wrangle support for a US attack on Iran? It seems to be. What would this be, plan C?

]]> By: Frederick http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1646 Frederick Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:04:52 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1646 Really, TJ. If a "Leftist" blog publishes the date of the Titanic sinking as, 1912,does that not make it so? I believe the phrase goes something like, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." ...and let me update my comment by saying, after reading the Washington Times story you site, that your position is woefully lacking <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130012" rel="nofollow">when it comes to facts</a>: <blockquote>...the charge that Pelosi requested -- or demanded -- a specific plane, as GOP lawmakers have claimed, is baseless. To the contrary, House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood explained that it was he who requested Pelosi have access to military aircraft capable of flying nonstop between Washington, D.C., and California. Further, the Los Angeles Times reported on February 8 that Pelosi's press secretary, Brendan Daly, has denied that the speaker "requested a specific plane," and on the February 8 edition of MSNBC News Live, NBC News congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira reported that "there's really no evidence that Pelosi specifically asked for ... this 757."</blockquote> Those are the facts, untill you can come up with something other than your opinion to refute them, STFU, andstop taking this thread off topic. Really, TJ. If a “Leftist” blog publishes the date of the Titanic sinking as, 1912,does that not make it so? I believe the phrase goes something like, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

…and let me update my comment by saying, after reading the Washington Times story you site, that your position is woefully lacking when it comes to facts:

…the charge that Pelosi requested — or demanded — a specific plane, as GOP lawmakers have claimed, is baseless. To the contrary, House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood explained that it was he who requested Pelosi have access to military aircraft capable of flying nonstop between Washington, D.C., and California. Further, the Los Angeles Times reported on February 8 that Pelosi’s press secretary, Brendan Daly, has denied that the speaker “requested a specific plane,” and on the February 8 edition of MSNBC News Live, NBC News congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira reported that “there’s really no evidence that Pelosi specifically asked for … this 757.”

Those are the facts, untill you can come up with something other than your opinion to refute them, STFU, andstop taking this thread off topic.

]]> By: TJ's Anti-contrarian Blog http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/comment-page-1/#comment-1645 TJ's Anti-contrarian Blog Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:37:53 +0000 http://mccs1977.com/2007/02/21/material-support/#comment-1645 You mean this one: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070208-121345-5680r.htm ...no, it's still there BWAHAHAAAA On my blog you implied it doesn't matter where you get your information from...really? You mean this one:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070208-121345-5680r.htm

…no, it’s still there

BWAHAHAAAA

On my blog you implied it doesn’t matter where you get your information from…really?

]]>