Condoleezza Rice kicks ass!

Ann Morgan ) writes:
(Maximo Lachman) wrote in message

It's all very well to accuse the Libertarians of being liars. Kindly
provide some specific examples of their lies, if you don't mind.

You (the LP platform 1st & foremost) asked for it, so here goes:
http://freenet.carleton.ca/~di540/Wyoming.txt (scroll to middle)

Because my experience has been that the Libertarians mainly tell the
truth, which is why they don't get voted for, because the immature
people in this country prefer beautiful lies to an ugly truth.

That's becuase Democratic-Republican lies, while numerous, at least are
consistent. The LP lies, no matter how few in comparison, are ugly since
they aren't, which is what turns people off. We've also got an LP in
Canada, and they still can't get elected in a country where 3rd, 4th &
5th parties are the norm, not the exception. Obviously, there's something
wrong with the LP, when Neo-conservative lunatics in the Reform Party and
Neo-Democrat air-heads can become MPs.

regarding Condeleeza Rice's testimony, she is either perjuring herself
or is completely incompetent. Case in point, her statement that there

The former, according to the Ass't Sec'y of Housing under
the Papa Bush Duvlier presidency:
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotse...leezzarice.htm
She's a former NY investment banker, and had worked in the WTC.

Also check out the criminal negligence lawsuit against the entire Bubya
administration by one of the widows:
http://www.911forthetruth.com

You are avoiding the issue. The question is not Condeleeza's
employment history, or lawsuits against the Bush administration. The

This sounds like LP superficiality on any number of levels:

1. When did I get responsibility for issues addressed on others' sites?
2. It's Catherine Austin Fitts who was in the former Bush administration
and former banker, not Rice.
3. The lawsuit website has links that go into greater detail on the
issue of prevention, leaning more to incompetency than Fitts does on
her site.

question is why Condeleeza states that there was no way to prevent the
9/11 attacks when it is obvious to anyone with normal intelligence
that the attacks could not have occured if the pilots had been armed
with guns. Either she is perjuring herself, or her intelligence is far
below the normal level. In either case, she is not fit to give
testimony, or to hold her current office.

Well, if you had bothered to visit each site, you'd have seen
examples of persons taking aim at one case and/or the other.
Please check them out and post your impressions of them. To me
it seems that being willing to successfully commit perjury is a
prerequisite for public office in today's Yankistan in order to
defend the special interests that one represents.

(Maximo Lachman) wrote in message news:c64tp2$3m5

That's becuase Democratic-Republican lies, while numerous, at least are
consistent. The LP lies, no matter how few in comparison, are ugly since
they aren't, which is what turns people off.

You are STILL avoiding the issue. You claim that the LP tells lies.
WHAT LIES?! Name specific examples!!


You are avoiding the issue. The question is not Condeleeza's
employment history, or lawsuits against the Bush administration. The

This sounds like LP superficiality on any number of levels:

1. When did I get responsibility for issues addressed on others' sites?

The issue was not addressed on another site. It was adressed HERE, in
an earlier post of mine to which you gave irrelelevent replies.
2. It's Catherine Austin Fitts who was in the former Bush administration
and former banker, not Rice.
3. The lawsuit website has links that go into greater detail on the
issue of prevention, leaning more to incompetency than Fitts does on
her site.

Please try to understand that the issue I raised is not, and never has
been who may or may not have been a former banker, or other problems
in the Bush administration. The issue I raised is as follows:
Condeleeza Rice specifically stated in her testimony that there was no
way the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. This is false, since
they could have been prevented if the pilots had been armed with guns,
a fact which is obvious to anyone of normal intelligence. By making
this falsehood, Condeleeza is showing that she is either deliberately
perjuring herself, or is so mentally deficient as to be unfit to give
any testimony. In either case, her testimony should be stricken from
the record, and she should be removed from office. Please restrict
your further comments on this to this particular issue. Your other
comments have been completely irrelevent.

To me it seems that being willing to successfully commit perjury is a
prerequisite for public office in today's Yankistan in order to
defend the special interests that one represents.

This is the first relevent thing you have said. However perjury is a
crime for good reasons. I do not care if Condeleeza Rice feels that
protecting the 'special interests' of the gun grabbers is more
important than giving truthful testimony. When you testify you are
supposed to tell the truth to the best of your ability, in an
objective fashion. What you might 'feel' is irrelevent. If people were
permitted to tell what they 'felt' in a trial, rather than the truth,
then the whole system of trials becomes nothing but a mockery. She is
not fit to hold office, and should be put on trial herself for perjury

Ann Morgan ) writes:
(Maximo Lachman) wrote
That's becuase Democratic-Republican lies, while numerous, at least are
consistent. The LP lies, no matter how few in comparison, are ugly since
they aren't, which is what turns people off.
You are STILL avoiding the issue. You claim that the LP tells lies.
WHAT LIES?! Name specific examples!!

I'm not going to rewrite what was on the link that you snipped. That's
what webpages are for. The 1st half was an article I had written in the
1990s which was stolen by many Libertarians, some of whom pretended it was
theirs. Now that violates two of their core principles: not to engage in
theft or fraud. I later attached a critique of Libertarian hypocrites to
that page, out of sheer frustration of having to deal with them.

You are avoiding the issue. The question is not Condeleeza's
employment history, or lawsuits against the Bush administration. The

This sounds like LP superficiality on any number of levels:

1. When did I get responsibility for issues addressed on others' sites?

The issue was not addressed on another site. It was adressed HERE, in
an earlier post of mine to which you gave irrelelevent replies.

You have just given us an example of Libertarian lies in action. 1st, you
are lying that the issue wasn't addressed on another site. You'd have to
have read all sites, and all pages on them to have known that, which you
obviously haven't done. 2nd, even if true, it still doesn't make me
answerable.

2. It's Catherine Austin Fitts who was in the former Bush administration
and former banker, not Rice.
3. The lawsuit website has links that go into greater detail on the
issue of prevention, leaning more to incompetency than Fitts does on
her site.

Please try to understand that the issue I raised is not, and never has
been who may or may not have been a former banker, or other problems
in the Bush administration. The issue I raised is as follows:
Condeleeza Rice specifically stated in her testimony that there was no
way the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

This is the rationale behind Ellen Mariani's lawsuit. If you had read the
site, you'd have known this. In order to prove her case, she'll have to
show that no measures that should have been taken, were taken, at least
to attempt to prevent the attacks, whether or not they would have worked.
The facts seem to indicate that no such measures were taken. The issue
you are raising is sufficient to proven culpability, but not necessary.

they could have been prevented if the pilots had been armed with guns,
a fact which is obvious to anyone of normal intelligence. By making

Allegedly, Bubya refused to renew Clinton's executive order to allow
ex-military pilots to carry guns on board, during that very summer.
Can you verify this? Not that I care, but to see if you do more than
you enjoy trolling me. Now if Bubya had renewed the order, he could file
a motion for summary judgement, at least vis-a-vis himself, since that
would have been 'something' in contrast to nothing. Also, can you tell
me how not renewing the order aids the alledged gun-grabbing agenda?
Finally, if Clinton was such an enemy of gun-owners, why did he allow
any pilots to carry them on board?

this falsehood, Condeleeza is showing that she is either deliberately
perjuring herself, or is so mentally deficient as to be unfit to give
any testimony. In either case, her testimony should be stricken from
the record, and she should be removed from office. Please restrict
your further comments on this to this particular issue. Your other
comments have been completely irrelevent.

I had no original comments on this issue, which is why I posted links to
those of others who are more high profile or better qualified than either
of us.

To me it seems that being willing to successfully commit perjury is a
prerequisite for public office in today's Yankistan in order to
defend the special interests that one represents.

This is the first relevent thing you have said. However perjury is a

It should have said "willing AND able" which is the basic criticism of
Catherine Fitts: if Rice cannot tell convincing lies, then she's unfit for
office. If you had read the 1st page of her site, you'd have know that it
was not me who's saying that. (I'd much rather get credit for work of
mine that was allegedly "borrowed under fair use", if you call not giving
the author credit "fair".) But I will say I prefer Fitts' sense of what
is de facto 'Realpolitik' in D.C. than your sense that party apparatchics
(pun intended) must put the country's interest ahead of that of their
party's. You may as well outlaw party politics. Here's her webpage again:
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotse...leezzarice.htm

crime for good reasons. I do not care if Condeleeza Rice feels that
protecting the 'special interests' of the gun grabbers is more
important than giving truthful testimony. When you testify you are
supposed to tell the truth to the best of your ability, in an
objective fashion. What you might 'feel' is irrelevent. If people were
permitted to tell what they 'felt' in a trial, rather than the truth,
then the whole system of trials becomes nothing but a mockery. She is
not fit to hold office, and should be put on trial herself for perjury

Instead of putting me under the Spanish Inquisition, why not instead
contribute a symbolic $9.11 to Ellen Mariani's criminal negligence lawsuit
against the Bubya administration, if you really believe it is false that
doing 'nothing' was an acceptable policy option? Here's the website
again: http://www.911forthetruth.com/#donate

Believe me that it's much easier to prove Mariani's civil case in court,
than a criminal case for perjury by Rice.

"Fitzdraco" wrote:
Also consider that most Libertarians take each political hot button on
it's own merrits and thus they tend to have a platform that most normal
people on the Right and Left find very odd to say the least.

Speak of the devil casting out Satan by means of Lucifer: if the LP had
the integrity to argue each issue on its own merits, then they could
disband the party and become Independents like Ralph Nader. Instead they
do the opposite, as concisely put by Libertarianism in One Lesson -
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html -
No compromise from the "Party of Principle": Justice, happiness, liberty,
guns & other good stuff come only by rigidly adhering to inflexible dogmas
[& Objectivist/Neo-Tech psychopathologies akin to Scientology]