Friday, February 04, 2005
Here is some good news on the Iraq front:
Iraqi villagers kill 5 insurgents [attacked for voting, sheikh: we're sick of their threats]
Australian Broadcasting Co. ^ | Feb 4, 2005 [local] | Mark Willacy
The residents of a small Iraqi village have killed five insurgents who had attacked them for voting in last weekend's national elections.
Several other insurgents were also wounded.
The insurgents raided the village of al-Mudhiryah south of Baghdad after warning its inhabitants not to vote in the election.
The villagers fought back, killing five of the insurgents and wounding eight others.
The insurgents' cars were then set alight.
Al-Mudhiryah's tribal sheikh says his people are sick of being threatened by Islamic extremists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335503/posts
Iraqi villagers kill 5 insurgents [attacked for voting, sheikh: we're sick of their threats]
Australian Broadcasting Co. ^ | Feb 4, 2005 [local] | Mark Willacy
The residents of a small Iraqi village have killed five insurgents who had attacked them for voting in last weekend's national elections.
Several other insurgents were also wounded.
The insurgents raided the village of al-Mudhiryah south of Baghdad after warning its inhabitants not to vote in the election.
The villagers fought back, killing five of the insurgents and wounding eight others.
The insurgents' cars were then set alight.
Al-Mudhiryah's tribal sheikh says his people are sick of being threatened by Islamic extremists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335503/posts
Below I talk about liberals who lie through their teeth about having seen a certain Rush Limbaugh tv show episode:
Here is an example of that.
The blog master, Sean, has put up a lie about it, and someone named "Jim" comes along and backs up Sean's lie, by lying himself.
Not only did Sean resort to censorship, but he has now changed the settings of his blog so that any commentary entries will be sent to him for review before he decides to post it. I guess the truth is too much to handle. But it is fun watching liberals just dig themselves another hole. sean will never come up with the tape he claims to have.
Here is what I sent. I doubt it will be published (if it does, I will be shocked):
________________________________
"[EDITOR'S NOTE] Comment has been removed for blatant aggitation."
Translation: Comment has been removed because I couldnt debate the facts, so I resorted to censorship. What he called "agitation" was in fact a dare, a request, for him to provide better proof than the transcript.
"Yawn, once again. Rush did it, he meant it, and I have it on tape, moron."
You are lying through your teeth. You do not have it on tape. The inicident of which you speak simply didnt happen therefore the tape doesnt exist. If I am wrong, and I'm not, I defy you to put it up online. Again, aside from video, you cant get any better than a transcript. The transcript trumps your cited washington post article.
"Too bad for them we can look at the historical record for ourselves."
Hey he's got a tape. Lets see the tape. He wont bring it forth. But if he does, and I'm wrong, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.
"And Millie was Bush Sr.'s dog, not Bill Clinton's, so you might try a more convincing lie next time instead regurgitating what you read on The Free Republic."
God, but you are dense, Jim. So who said otherwise? Who lied about Millie being the clintons dog? Not I. Are you saying that this whole episode occured when the Clintons had Buddy? And/or are you saying that Clinton was in the White House in Nov. 1992? Because he wasnt. He didnt take office untill Jan 1993. You also seem to forget that Rush's show went off the air for good in the Spring of 1997. The Clintons werent given Buddy untill Dec. 1997. Did you think that the transcript was made up? Go to Lexis Nexis and see it for yourself.
_______________
Out of the HUNDREDS of liberals I have tried to correct this on, only two admitted their mistake and thanked me. One of which was a professional journalist/columnist.
The rest, they just lie through their teeth. They have two choices: admit their mistake, or lie about having seen the non-existant version of events themselves. And most of them choose to lie.
Here is an example of that.
The blog master, Sean, has put up a lie about it, and someone named "Jim" comes along and backs up Sean's lie, by lying himself.
Not only did Sean resort to censorship, but he has now changed the settings of his blog so that any commentary entries will be sent to him for review before he decides to post it. I guess the truth is too much to handle. But it is fun watching liberals just dig themselves another hole. sean will never come up with the tape he claims to have.
Here is what I sent. I doubt it will be published (if it does, I will be shocked):
________________________________
"[EDITOR'S NOTE] Comment has been removed for blatant aggitation."
Translation: Comment has been removed because I couldnt debate the facts, so I resorted to censorship. What he called "agitation" was in fact a dare, a request, for him to provide better proof than the transcript.
"Yawn, once again. Rush did it, he meant it, and I have it on tape, moron."
You are lying through your teeth. You do not have it on tape. The inicident of which you speak simply didnt happen therefore the tape doesnt exist. If I am wrong, and I'm not, I defy you to put it up online. Again, aside from video, you cant get any better than a transcript. The transcript trumps your cited washington post article.
"Too bad for them we can look at the historical record for ourselves."
Hey he's got a tape. Lets see the tape. He wont bring it forth. But if he does, and I'm wrong, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.
"And Millie was Bush Sr.'s dog, not Bill Clinton's, so you might try a more convincing lie next time instead regurgitating what you read on The Free Republic."
God, but you are dense, Jim. So who said otherwise? Who lied about Millie being the clintons dog? Not I. Are you saying that this whole episode occured when the Clintons had Buddy? And/or are you saying that Clinton was in the White House in Nov. 1992? Because he wasnt. He didnt take office untill Jan 1993. You also seem to forget that Rush's show went off the air for good in the Spring of 1997. The Clintons werent given Buddy untill Dec. 1997. Did you think that the transcript was made up? Go to Lexis Nexis and see it for yourself.
_______________
Out of the HUNDREDS of liberals I have tried to correct this on, only two admitted their mistake and thanked me. One of which was a professional journalist/columnist.
The rest, they just lie through their teeth. They have two choices: admit their mistake, or lie about having seen the non-existant version of events themselves. And most of them choose to lie.
