Makes you wonder about Senators Bob and John Kerry, no?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

that has nothing to do with making fun of his name. you know it. if you had any balls at all, you'd admit it.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

To the best of my knowledge, the nickname Shrub was coined by former Texas Governor Ann Richards. The aim was to show that Shrub was throwing his daddy's name around but that he was unable to live up to his father's legacy. The name and the reason behind it fit now more than ever.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>Oh, ok - so you think that Bush's foreign policy is a failure

>and that he's not as good a President as his father, and your

>way of expressing that is by calling him "Shrub." That's

>brilliant. Keep it up. I'm sure you and your Paul

>Krugman-worshipping liberal friends will make great headway in

>convincing people not to vote for him using that form of

>"argument."

Once again, you seem to be talking to someone else -- perhaps the voices in your head? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Your sidekick asked how that nickname is related to policy issues and I told him. You tried to shoot down what I said by distorting it and you failed. Par for the course.

>>So what? I take no responsibility for what others say or do.

>

>>I pointed out something that is undeniably true -- W. put

>his

>>own military service in issue by appearing at a public event

>>in a military uniform similar to the one he wore when he

>>served.

>You say he tried to "remind" people of his military service by

>doing this. How do you know that? Did he talk about his

>military service?

I know that because I know how Rove works. What message do you suppose he would have meant to send had he made Bush show up wearing a clown suit? Rove stages Bush's public appearances very carefully, using symbols that are easily recognizable and that communicate what he wants to communicate. And subtlety is never on the menu.

>If Bush's inadequate military service is fair game, then is

>Clinton's complete absence of service, under highly

>questionably circumstances, also fair game?

"Game" for what? You seem not to realize that Clinton is no longer president and can never be president again. Whatever his past transgressions, they certainly have no relevance to any current or future Democratic candidate. Saying Clinton dodged the draft has what relevance when evaluating the candidacy of Kerry or Lieberman? Does his background have anything to do with whether they would make a good president? You act as though Bush will be running against Bill Clinton in '04. Do you have amnesia?

>Right - exactly - you think it's fine to call Bush "Shrub" but

>not fine to call Clinton "Slick Willie." That's exactly why

>blindly ideological liberals like you are George Bush's best

>friends - you're so intellectually dishonest and inconsistent,

Here we go again with the personal insults from the one poster who can ALWAYS be counted on to lower every conversation to the level of two adolescents yelling at each other in the middle school playground. Okay, shithead, show me ANY post in which I have ever complained about Clinton's nickname.

>So what happened? Why couldn't

>>this brilliant team get the job done?

>Because Chirac made clear that under no circumstances would

>France ever allow a UN-sanctioned war against Iraq.

Not true. France's effort at the UN was to provide more time for inspections.

>I know - it's a great foreign policy failure to make the

>French angry. If only we pleased the French more, things

>would be better.

If only we pleased the French more, they might actually come up with some dough for the rebuilding of Iraq. You seem to prefer that the American people borrow the money to pay for all of it because Bush insists on lowering taxes at the same time, a policy of surpassing idiocy which only a moron would approve.

>Sometimes, when two people fail to get along, it can be one of

>their fault, or both of their fault. Why do you assume that

>their failure to get along is Bush's fault?

Because it's his goal at issue, dummy. It wasn't France's idea to attack Iraq. When you have a goal and are trying to persuade others to help you with it, it's up to you to persuade them and if you fail to persuade them the failure is yours, not theirs. If Bush wants to be the leader of the Atlantic alliance then it's his job to set policy and persuade the others to go along with it. It does no good to whine that the others are being recalcitrant. Persuading them is part of the job. If he can't do it he needs to make room for someone who can. Bush is like a football kicker complaining that the goal posts are too far away. That's the JOB, man. Either you can do it or you can't.

>>So what? As Alterman has pointed out (and proven with the

>>data recounted in detail in his book "What Liberal Media?"),

>>the personal political choices of journalists at the major

>>networks and newspapers seem to have little or no impact on

>>their news coverage, which was lopsidedly in favor of Bush

>>during the 2000 campaign.

>And the fact that the media is filled with liberals

>overwhelming doesn't affect news coverage at all. Do you

>actually believe that????

More than believe it, I have directed you to a book that contains detailed data that support it. Your position is based on nothing but your own prejudices. As usual.

>Read Bernard Goldberg's book.

I did. And Alterman's book refutes his arguments with solid (not anecdotal) evidence point by point.

>>>Liberals are constantly on Fox News.

>>

>>They are? Constantly? Could you give us a list of the

>>liberals who host their own programs on Fox?

>There are, as far as I know, only 3 programs with hosts who

>express their views - the 3 prime-time programs. Bill

>O'Reilly is hardly a conservaitve.

Hardly? He just despises liberals and says so at every opportunity.

>Alan Colmes is a liberal.

>Sean Hannity is a conservative. I don't know what Greta Van

>Sustern is, because she barely talks about politics from what

>I have seen.

You left out Brit Hume. And Tony Snow. And Neil Cavuto. And Ollie North. All host their own shows. What a surprise that you "forgot" about them.

>Who are the conservatives who host their own programs on CBS,

>ABC, NBC and CNN? WELL????????

CNN has Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak. CNBC has Larry Kudlow and Jim Cramer. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough. I just love embarrassing you.

>If liberals can't hold their own in debates, that's their

>fault, not O'Reilly's. Now he's supposed to not only have

>them on and let them voice their views, but also make sure

>they win.

The fact is he doesn't let them voice their views. He yells, bullies, interrupts, cuts segments short and even has mikes turned off when he doesn't like what is being said. Franken's book gives specific examples.

>They have equal time. Colmes is never interrupted by Hannity.

> If Hannity dominates the show, it's only becasue he arguments

>are more compelling. In what other sense does he "dominate"?

They don't have equal time, nor are they paid to do the same job. I've already referenced a source that discusses their different roles in detail.

>You're just whining and crying that your side loses. Nobody

>wants to watch people with your political views. Fox trounces

>CNN and other liberal media outlets in the ratings. Why is

>that?

Now you are resorting to out-and-out lies. The truth is that each one of the three broadcast network nightly newscasts -- which YOU have already labeled as liberal -- has MUCH higher ratings than any program on Fox. So does Ted Koppel's "Nightline." Why are their "liberal" views so much MORE popular? Well?

>Jesse Jackson had his own talk show on cable. Phil Donahue

>had his. Nobody wants to watch them, so they got cancelled.

>Liberals just bore people to death, which is why their ratings

>suck.

What do Jesse Jackson or Donahue have to do with organized labor? Neither of their shows was about business or the economy.

And if conservative shows are so popular, why was the Alan Keyes show, hosted by the most articulate conservative in America, canceled?

>Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are all liberals who

>shape their broadcasts every night. The liberal view is

>everywhere.

Lies. Alterman has provided specific data that refute this. You will never look at it because you could not endure anything that disturbs your prejudices.

>That's always been the case - still is. The only thing that

>has changed is that now conservative views are also heard.

>And lots of people listen. And that's really what you can't

>stand.

What I can't stand is the lies you keep telling in the face of copious evidence to the contrary.

>>You're saying The Times actually stated that they slant news

>>articles to favor Democrats? Let us have a specific

>>reference, please.

>They've issued multiple corrections of stories where they

>omitted or slanted facts which made the story more consistent

>with the liberal view - just as I said.

Okay, name one.

>Oh, so it's okay to engage in deceptive and dishonest

>practices in a newspaper in order to lie to readers, as long

>as you do it on the Op-Ed page. That's an interesting new

>journalistic principle.

If Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak can do it in their columns, why can't everyone else?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>that has nothing to do with making fun of his name. you know

>it. if you had any balls at all, you'd admit it.

Just what this message board needs, someone else who can't go for two minutes without insulting another person. Okay, jerkoff, stick it up your flabby, pockmarked behind. You happy now?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>Oh, FUCKING RIGHT!!!! Liberals are so wonderful, so committed

>to jorunalistic principles, that they can set aside their

>strident lbieral views and report the news fairly and without

>basis. And the fact that the media is filled with liberals

>overwhelming doesn't affect news coverage at all. Do you

>actually believe that????

>

>Read Bernard Goldberg's book. He worked at CBS News for years

>and details with ample evidence how Dan Rather's liberalism

>and those of the reporters and producers slanted virtually

>every political story broadcast.

As pointed out by Al Franken, Goldberg's Bias is replete with lies and half truths, as this interview with Franken shows:

You made an appearance on Donahue's show back in January and confronted Bernard Goldberg about his book that claimed liberals run the media. And you made the comment on Donahue's show that so much of the right-wing media is just flat-out lazy in not tracking down sources or context for what is reported.

FRANKEN: Well, in that one, Goldberg had a chapter called "Left Wing Hate Speech." He uses as an example something that John Chancellor said in the commentary on Nightly News with Tom Brokaw on August 21, 1991 – that was the day that the coup was put down in the Soviet Union, the one at the Parliament where Yeltsin was on the tank and stuff. And Brokaw gives this impassioned opening to the show, something like, "This is the day where the gray men of the Kremlin were finally put down. And history will speak. And that the people of Russia didn't let themselves go back into the darkness, the state oppression, blah-blah-blah."

Total anti-communist, anti-Soviet introduction. And then, later in the show, Brokaw asks Chancellor, "What does Gorbachev do next?" Because, at this point, what brought about the coup were these horrible shortages that the Soviet Union was having, which were the worst shortages since World War II. And Perestroika, at this point, was six years old. Gorbachev had dismantled the state economy, and there was really no system – there was no communism any more. And so John Chancellor says, basically, Gorbachev is in the position where he can't blame communism – the problems are the shortages.

And Goldberg quotes this in his book about "liberal bias" and says it refers to the absurd notion that John Chancellor believes that the shortages in the Soviet Union were not caused by communism. Of course John Chancellor isn't around anymore to defend himself.

So I'm on the show with Donahue, and I'm in San Francisco on a satellite, which is always hard to do, and he's in the studio. And I asked him what happened on that day. I read him the quote. And I said, "What happened that day in the Soviet Union?" thinking that he knew. And then I would just say, "Then how could you leave out that context?" And in fact, he didn't know. Goldberg just didn't know. And Goldberg says, "You tell me, Al," very indignant that I would ask him. And I said, "No, you tell me. It's your book. You tell me." And basically he said, "OK, I don't know." Milton Friedman would have agreed with what John Chancellor was saying that day.

But when you confront the right-wing media about their reporting, all they do is they get mad. Instead of saying, "You know what? I really screwed up." Well, what happened was Goldberg just regurgitated something he got from a right-wing media research center, and just put it in the book and thought that, oh, this proves that John Chancellor thought that communism wasn't a problem or something.[/font color]

Regurgitating from the right wing media. Now we know where Doug/TT gets his information from. Perhaps he should have been featured in Franken's book.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>>Right - exactly - you think it's fine to call Bush "Shrub"

>but

>>not fine to call Clinton "Slick Willie." That's exactly why

>>blindly ideological liberals like you are George Bush's best

>>friends - you're so intellectually dishonest and

>inconsistent,

>

>Here we go again with the personal insults from the one poster

>who can ALWAYS be counted on to lower every conversation to

>the level of two adolescents yelling at each other in the

>middle school playground. Okay, shithead, show me ANY post in

>which I have ever complained about Clinton's nickname.

Thank you for giving a prime example of why your alleged policy of never name-calling "first" - which you parade yourself around spouting endlessly and nausetingly even though nobody believes it - is based upon nothing but a pack of lies.

You feel free to engage in personal insult after personal insult, but don't count them as personal insults. When someone else makes a completely non-personal criticism of your argument, as opposed to you personally, you declare that to be a "personal insult," engage in more personal inuslts, and then claim that the other person insulted first.

Here in this thread, for instance, you long ago accused me of being illiterate, of being too stupid to understand the difference between past and present, of being incapable of writing in English. None of that, in your "mind," counted as personal insults - because YOU wrote them. But then, after having that spewed at me by you, I say that your arguments prove that you are being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent, and you declare THAT to be the "first personal insult" in the thread, thereafter justifying yet more personal attacks ("Shithead") from you.

Do you actually think there's a person anywhere who believes your lie that you only engage in personal insults when you are insulted first? Don't you realize that everyone sees through your transparent game of pretending that all your insults are not really insults, and that even innocous, non-personal comments about your arguments made by others are "insults." Do you think you're fooling anyone?

>>Read Bernard Goldberg's book.

>

>I did. And Alterman's book refutes his arguments with solid

>(not anecdotal) evidence point by point.

That you rely upon Eric Alterman to understand what constitutes journalistic objectivity demonstates how little you either care about or understand objectivity. Alterman is about as far to the Left as a person can be without being Trotsky. He thinks that any news broadcast that doesn't reflect the inherent evils of Capitalism, Corporations and George Bush is "biased" - just like you do.

You and Eric Alterman can watch the same news broadcast as Ann Coulter and Merlin - and you and Eric will think it's biased to the Right, and Ann and Merlin will think it's biased to the Left. That's because you're all anti-intellectual ideologues who think that anything that doesn't comport with your world-view is "biased" and are more interested in whining that you're not being treated fairly than you are in anything else. Most people just tune out people like you and Eric and Ann.

>>They've issued multiple corrections of stories where they

>>omitted or slanted facts which made the story more

>consistent

>>with the liberal view - just as I said.

>

>Okay, name one.

Anyone with an even passing familiarity with the NYT - which apparently excludes you - frequently reads such corrections, so I'll just give you the lastest one, but by no means the worst one.

About a month ago, Michael Tomasky wrote a "news article" in which he suggested that Bush cares a lot about capturing OBL and Sadddam Hussein, but doesn't care about catching the leaker of Valarie Palme's identity. To make this "point," he used 3 quotes from Bush (one on each topic) to contrast his level of concern. One little problem: the quotes were taken wildly out of context and created a completely misleading picture of his comments on the Palme affair.

His distortion was so extreme that a mere "correction" did not suffice. Instead, the NYT was forced to publish an "Editor's Note" - reserved for more severe breaches of journalistic ethics - to admit that the quotes were taken out of context to make Bush look bad and said that the editors should have not allowed it.

Why did this NYT reporter and his editors do such a thing? Why did they distort quotes to make Bush look bad?

And one can simply not allow it to go unstated that 10 days into the war in Afghanistan, the NYT, on its FIRST PAGE, referred to that was as a "quagmire." How could anyone think that this glorious paper is biased?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>Regurgitating from the right wing media. Now we know where

>Doug/TT gets his information from. Perhaps he should have been

>featured in Franken's book.

If I were in a forum filled with Southern evangelicals who were dutifully spouting their cliched, predictable right-wing ideology, I would be arguing with them.

Instead, I'm in a forum filled with big city, pseudo-cosmolitan faggots dutifully spouting their cliched, predictable left-wing ideology, and so I am disputing that.

That's because I despise unthinking, uncritical, slogan-spouting partisians on either side of the spectrum. You're all the same - there's no difference between any of you. You're all intellectually dishonest, incapable of acknowledging merit in the other side or fault in your own side, and so vested in your political party that you cede your critical thinking faculties (for those, unlike you, who have them to begin with) at the altar of petty political argument.

I know this is very difficult for your brain to digest, but not everyone is afflicted with your intellectual disease. A perfect reflection of the stunted mental prison to which you've been condemned by DNA is that you accuse me of being a captive of Fox News and right-wing ideology even though I have contempt for the Bush presidency, believe that the top political imperative is to prevent his re-election, and have a litany of reasons why I believe his Administration is corrupt and destructive.

But you and your ilk are equally corrupt and destructive. The cries of you and Al Franken of "conservative bias" come from exactly the same rancid, dank place as the cries of Bernard Goldberg and Ann Coulter of "liberal bias" - they stem from an inability to see the world in any way other than through your own tortured, narrowed, self-interested walls, and from a desire to control what other people say and think.

Like them, if you see a news story that doesn't reflect your rigid, trite ideology, you see "bias." You're all the same - Leftist ideologues and Rightist ideologues - and you're equally sickening. That's the appeal of non-ideological candidates like John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenneger - they are not YOU or Pat Robertson or Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy or Tom DeLay. They are not ideologues - they are not trapped in your ideological prison, which so many people are sick of, whether the prison bars are in shades of "Right" or "Left".

Finally, aside from noting the towering defects in your intellect, I feel compelled to note the equally stark defect in your character. For months, you have been accusing me of having previously posted here as FFF, and despite my telling you what a liar you were, you persisted.

Now, you apparently realize the error of your ways, and have abandoned that accusation and resorted to a new one - that I previously posted here as "TT." Revealingly, though,you abandon your accusation without acknowledging your error, and simply move on to the next one, until that one is proven to be a lie as well. You wallow in lies, and even when exposed, simply adopt the next one shamelessly. It's why you make such a typical liberal shill - being exposed doesn't bother you because, like all ideologues, you are beyond shame.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

>>Here we go again with the personal insults

>Thank you for giving a prime example of why your alleged

>policy of never name-calling "first" - which you parade

>yourself around spouting endlessly and nausetingly even though

>nobody believes it - is based upon nothing but a pack of lies.

You, Doug, are nothing but a lying piece of shit. The truth is that several other posters agreed with and supported my characterization of my policy in this regard in the recent threads started on that subject by bluenix and Rick. Your decision to lie and pretend that didn't happen just shows how blatantly deceitful and dishonest a creature you are.

>You feel free to engage in personal insult after personal

>insult, but don't count them as personal insults. When

>someone else makes a completely non-personal criticism of your

>argument,

Could you be referring to the earlier post in which you stated that I am a member of a group, "liberals," that you characterized as dishonest? And you are saying that this is NOT a personal comment but a "non-personal criticism of your argument"? I think that lying about your own words that are right here on the board for everyone to see simply reinforces your well-earned reputation as the most dishonest poster here. You really are nothing but filth.

>Here in this thread, for instance, you long ago accused me of

>being illiterate, of being too stupid to understand the

>difference between past and present, of being incapable of

>writing in English. None of that, in your "mind," counted as

>personal insults -

Well, Doug, when you deliberately accuse me of saying something you must know I never said, as you did in the post to which I was responding, you give me only two choices. Either I can call you a fucking liar, or I can conclude that you have a problem with English. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by choosing the latter. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

>Do you actually think there's a person anywhere who believes

>your lie that you only engage in personal insults when you are

>insulted first?

As I pointed out above, there are several who agree with me about that and have said so. Why did you lie about that?

>That you rely upon Eric Alterman to understand what

>constitutes journalistic objectivity demonstates how little

>you either care about or understand objectivity. Alterman is

>about as far to the Left

Now here you once again give me the alternatives of calling you a liar or stating that you can't understand English. Which one should I pick? As I stated quite clearly, Alterman's book isn't about his opinion, it contains detailed data about what the media has actually said which shows the fallacy of your accusation of liberal bias. But in order to make the argument you're making you have to pretend I didn't say that. Such a liar!

> Most people just tune out people like you and Eric and Ann.

Yeah? So who is it who is buying enough copies of books by both people to make them bestselling authors -- Martians? I had no idea that extraterrestrials were so interested in American politics.

>>Okay, name one.

>the quotes were taken

>wildly out of context and created a completely misleading

>picture of his comments on the Palme affair.

>Why did this NYT reporter and his editors do such a thing?

>Why did they distort quotes to make Bush look bad?

Seems to me it was the correction that was the error, not the original article you refer to. The undeniable fact that Bush knew about the leak in July and did absolutely nothing about it for months clearly shows he doesn't care about the outing of Plame. Tomasky was clearly telling the truth. Good for him. Bad for the editors who let themselves be bullied into undermining him.

>And one can simply not allow it to go unstated that 10 days

>into the war in Afghanistan, the NYT, on its FIRST PAGE,

>referred to that was as a "quagmire." How could anyone think

>that this glorious paper is biased?

The war in Afghanistan a quagmire? With the country back under the control of ruthless warlords, with the Taliban resurging, and with all of Bush's fine promises about bringing democracy and prosperity to the Afghans revealed as nothing but bullshit, how could anyone possibly think that?

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

I'll admit I was wrong about you being FFF. In fact, I acknowledged that in a previous thread. It doesn't take someone of even your limited intellect to realize that you were either FFF or TT, just as it doesn't to realize that Oren is Ethan/theDCeBoy. I always knew you were one or the other. Now I know which one for sure.

Your problem, Kyle (or is that just another alias?), is that you are a pompous windbag with delusions of godhood. You fancy yourself as everyone's intellectual superior when you are in fact not. You have serious self esteem issues that can only be dealt with by ridiculing others. It's quite sad actually.

You are easily bated and drawn into conversations. Your Pavlovian responses are as amusing as they are pathetic. You are pre programmed for our reading pleasure. Whenever you are proven wrong about a point, you lash out into some sort of personal attack in a vain attempt to hide your idiocy.

Franken proved that Goldberg was nothing but another lying conservative whose party has had a little taste of power and is now drunk with it. Much like Ann Coulter, he's long on wind and very short on facts. If it sounds good, print it as fact, to hell with reality.

I have no illusions that Democrats are the saviors of the world, BUT the current administration is living up to the cliche that power corrupts. I'd much rather see a GOP dominated by Arnold (whom you never once heard me say anything negative about, but much like Goldberg and Coulter, you're not interested in facts). Arnold represents the GOP of old in terms of fiscal responsibility and the Democrats of old in terms of social responsibility. Todays' GOP has been corrupted by the influence of the Religious Right and today's Democrats have lost their way. Arnold for president!

Now, go back to your room and masturbate over your intellectual superiority. In the end, you're the only one who cares.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

you are a pathetic freak. your paranoia knows no bounds. your username is built around some bizarre obsession you have with someone who jilted you years ago. you sit here and continuously spout off conspiracy theories and accusations that UserX is REALLY UserY. that's sad. what's also sad is that you have no independent thoughts of your own. you can't formulate your own opinions. you just regurgitate terry mcauliffe. sometimes you even attribute his own words to him, but sometimes you don't. you hide behind buzzwords and distortions. instead of making intelligent commentary on policy, you instead stick to the pedantic use of "shrub" and "repiglican" among others. for all of this, i truly feel sorry for you. in spite of that, though, you continue to disgust me.

go ahead... where would we be without your sleuth skills to expose dastardly username deception? maybe one day you'll get your own sidekick, if you can find anyone pathetic enough to even care.

RE: What does it have to do with John Kerry...?

Ethan, for someone who chides others for using kindergarten tactics, yours takes the cake. I question the integrity of someone who posts on this board under two different identities. oren = ethan. While I was not sure about Doug being TT or FFF, now I am, but there was never any doubt in anyone's mind that Oren and theDCeBoy are one and the same. Have the balls to admit it.

nope

you're wrong.

>oren = ethan.

your command of hebrew is faulty.

oren = pine tree. it is a relatively uncommon name.

eitan = strong, firm. it is a relatively COMMON name. (the anglicised version is "ethan".)

i'm not worried about who you think i am. you're clearly paranoid and you spend most of your time claiming someone is someone else. that fills your sad, pathetic life with something other than pining over "nick" so go ahead.

with that, the discussion is ended. and now, i leave you to it. think whatever you want; it makes no difference to me.

RE: yup

Ethan, you've sent several messages in the past to various users on this message board, including me, identifying that Oren is actually Ethan (aka the DCeBoy). The fact that you refuse to admit shows that you have little credibility and much cowardice. Then again, perhaps you r=write as oren when you are erect, which would explain the lack of blood flow to your brain.

after this, ignored.

1) i don't care what your opinion is.

2) if you've got that email, post it. if you can convince someone else to, have him do it.

something has obviously threatened you. what that is, i'll never know, nor care. other people are just as capable of pointing out your idiocy, so if it really means that much to you, i'm happy to just let them do it. you see, unlike you, i'm neither paranoid nor obsessed.

whether i choose to continue to participate here or not, your identity accusations will be ignored. no one other than you cares.

RE: after this, ignored.

Hmm, interesting. You're the one who started going after me, yet you try to paint me as the bad guy. Pathetic.

Proof that oren is Ethan (also posting as the DCeBoy)

Message Center Rules

Logout FAQ Search Read new Profiles Calendar

Top User menu

Show all folders | Check who's online

User options

Edit account information

Change your password

Edit your profile

Edit your preference

Bookmarks

Inbox

Buddy list

Reading messages in your inbox

thanks

From: Oren

Date: Jul 30th 2002

thanks for taking TB to task for his jewish conspiracy controlling hollywood nonsense. why don't they make exposes about hasidic rabbis molesting children? well, because there is no hierarchy in place protecting the molesters & shifting them around to new victims. should all pedopholes be stopped? absolutely--doesn't have anything to do with religious orientation.

PS: i loved dogma. AM as g_d was priceless!

pps: ethan has been banned. i don't dare post under this name. i just use it to communicate with people privately. did you get rid of bewareofnick on aol?

Delete | Reply

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.21

Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com

Now, would you care to deny it some more? I'd be happy for deej or Hooboy or Daddy to check my inbox where this is save.

...

2) if you've got that email, post it. if you can convince someone else to, have him do it.

RE: ...and still you persist

I just posted the private message you sent me. I never said e-mail. You did. This message is saved in my inbox on this site. Pick someone: Lucky, Bucky, duke37, RickMunroe, EVEN axebahia, and I will e-mail them my passowrd to this site and they can verify that the message is in my inbox. The clock ticks, Ethan. Be a man and admit to the truth.

conspiracy

if they do your bidding for you, have them check it. i'm not sure what you proved, though.

>thanks for taking TB to task for his jewish conspiracy

>controlling hollywood nonsense.

who is TB?

>PS: i loved dogma. AM as g_d was priceless!

who is AM?

>i don't dare post under this name.

>i just use it to communicate with people privately. did you

>get rid of bewareofnick on aol?

clearly, i, oren, do post under this name.

>Now, would you care to deny it some more?

yeah.

you're obsessed with this sort of thing, aren't you?

RE: ...and still you persist

you're getting rather shrill.

RE: ...and still you persist

I'm waiting. Who would you like to pick to verify the authenticity of this message? Lucky, Bucky, Rick, duke37 or axe? Tick tick tick

RE: ...and still you persist

tick tick tick

i love this... it is better than sex!

tick tick tick

maybe if we're lucky you'll have an aneurism.

tick tick tick

TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK

tick

tick

tick

tick

tick

tick

RE: ...and still you persist

Nah, more than likely your brain will dry up due to all the blood going to your incredibly huge and awe inspiring schlong. So who do you pick? I;d be happy to pick for you but I'd like it to be someone you can't cry foul over. How about Flower???

RE: TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK

This is so sad that you will not admit that Ethan, the DCeBoy and Oren are one and the same. I'm still waiting for your pick. The clock ticks.....