NCclimber

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    4,456

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by NCclimber

  1. NCclimber
    You really need to stop believing everything you read linked to by Drudge and especially when it links to anything associated with Inhofe. Bogus assumption on your part. Nice try. So it's simply a "coincidence" that the exact same link with your paraphrased "headline" is currently on the Drudge web site? No coincidence. Drudge is where I found the story. That has no bearing on your claim that I believe everything that is linked to by Drudge, especially when the link goes to another Drudge page. Those little teasers have a tendancy of disappearing.
  2. NCclimber
    You mean he's not just playing politics... responding to the latest polls... trying to boost his horribly low approval numbers??? Yeah. That's the ticket.
  3. NCclimber
    You really need to stop believing everything you read linked to by Drudge and especially when it links to anything associated with Inhofe. Bogus assumption on your part. Nice try. While you may be right, it doesn't change the fact that... Cheers.
  4. NCclimber
    At my age, farting has a degree of uncertainty. Dirty bombs, indeed.
  5. NCclimber
    Is this an example of how you would like other people to use the word "proof"? Using hyperbole to address hysteria seems fitting.
  6. NCclimber
    More than a few "darlings" of the movement are reconsidering their position. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
  7. NCclimber
    LOL This is some funny stuff. They claim: The study doesn't give a single example of gouging in the US. It completely overlooks the impact of scarcity. Basic economic stuff. Basic supply and demand stuff. Why do so many people need a bogeyman to blame when circumstances aren't to their liking? To expect refineries to run at full capacity and charge the same per-unit rate as they normally charge is like telling hourly employees they will be required to work 70 hours per week with no time-and-a-half for overtime.
  8. NCclimber
    You sound like a six year old brat.
  9. NCclimber
    Same old.. same old. When you're clearly in the wrong, you resort to petty insults. Good show old man. You state Cheney was lying about a meeting in Prague between Iraqis and Atta and then post some statements made by Cheney in 2001 as supporting evidence. I call bullshit on it and you go into spin mode. Here it is, plain and simple - Show ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that Cheney was lying about that meeting (instead of relying information later proven wrong), when he mentioned it back in 2001 and I'll admit you were right and I was wrong. As I see it, your assertion was complete bullshit and you've done nothing to support it. Just to be clear about a couple of things: I never said Cheney hasn't lied to the public, only that there is nothing to prove he was lying in 2001 when he spoke about Iraqi/Atta meeting. And the story of alleged meeting has been thoroughly discredited. It's your move. Maybe you'll surprise me and man up. Maybe.
  10. NCclimber
    ROFL, I rest my case. Smart move. You seem to be sinking fast. Sadly, I don't think you realize this.
  11. NCclimber
    Pretty basic stuff.... and completely irrelevent to the bullshit you're shoveling.
  12. NCclimber
    I seem to recall Kallend going back and admitting he was wrong.... once. I guess he finally realized his diversions weren't working. Perfect track record? I say Nay!
  13. NCclimber
    Wow. Another lie by kallend. It seems you're not above telling blatant lies, if it serves to divert the conversation. Tsk, Tsk Are you calling me a liar? Does the shoe fit?
  14. NCclimber
    Continuing to repeat an untruth for years after it has been shown that there is no evidence for it - what do YOU call it? (It DID NOT stop in 2001). CHENEY DID NOT CONCEDE THAT THE STORY WAS UNTRUE UNTIL MARCH 2006, and even then it was a half-hearted concession. 2006 is long after the absence of evidence became public knowledge. Whether or not Cheney repeated those claims after they were discredited has no bearing on whether or not the 2001 statements were lies (of course). What is so hard for you to grasp about this? It seems so simple. More unprovable assumptions on your part? How uncharacteristic. Well, the 9/11 Commission said so - maybe that's not good enough for you. It may have taken Principia Mathematica (Russell and Whitehead) some 300 pages to conclude that 1+1=2, but to most of us it is self evident. Where in the 9/11 Commission's report is it stated "US intelligence agencies had NO information about Atta in Prague in 2001"?
  15. NCclimber
    Wow. Another lie by kallend. It seems you're not above telling blatant lies, if it serves to divert the conversation. Tsk, Tsk
  16. NCclimber
    More unprovable assumptions on your part? How uncharacteristic.
  17. NCclimber
    Seems reasonable. Of course, Kallend hasn't produced any evidence that the "Prague meeting" was considered bad information back in 2001. Why your hang up with 2001? I don't know... maybe it's because the Cheney statements that you presented as lies were made in 2001. In my book, someone's ability (or lack of ability) to own up to being wrong says a lot about their character. Maybe you should find out when he stopped making comments about Atta in Prague It wasn't 2001. US intelligence agencies had NO information about Atta in Prague in 2001 when Cheney announced it to the nation as fact. They still have no information about Atta in Prague. Help Someone make the SPINNING STOP!!!!!
  18. NCclimber
    Don't get your hopes up. I've noticed the same thing... on more than one occassion.
  19. NCclimber
    Seems reasonable. Of course, Kallend hasn't produced any evidence that the "Prague meeting" was considered bad information back in 2001. Why your hang up with 2001? I don't know... maybe it's because the Cheney statements that you presented as lies were made in 2001. In my book, someone's ability (or lack of ability) to own up to being wrong says a lot about their character.
  20. NCclimber
    Seems reasonable. Of course, Kallend hasn't produced any evidence that the "Prague meeting" was considered bad information back in 2001.
  21. NCclimber
    You are wrong. edit: upon rereading my own link, I had the date wrong. It was post 9/11, sorry for the confusion Kudos for owning up to a simple mistake. Some people around here seem incapable doing the same.
  22. NCclimber
    You are wrong.
  23. NCclimber
    Four years ago if you were not in total goosestep with Cheney and Bush.. you were seen as unpatriotic...unamerican and possibly a treasonous terrorist sympathizer....we have some of those proponents right here in this forum....Theirs is a black and white paranoid world that they live in.
  24. NCclimber
    I don't expect him to reveal the truth, but I am annoyed at his "it wasn't my fault, I couldn't open my mouth back then" attitude. I'm not sure about what he is able to talk about now, but I think was probably prohibited from going public while he working for the CIA.
  25. NCclimber
    If only Dan Rather had been able to pull of his deception...