Reply With Quote
Well chump. Looks like you are unable to challenge my contentions. That's OK. I'm tired of talking to walls anyway.
Yes I noticed. It seems I am the only one that holds the views I do even among the more conservative types here. Shows we openly differ, doesn't it?
Well chump. Looks like you are unable to challenge my contentions. That's OK. I'm tired of talking to walls anyway.
X 99+++
If Gonzo did nothing wrong, there was no reason at all to resign. Don't give me any bull about having to defend himself against the big bad Democrats -- according to you there was nothing he had to defend. All he did was give the same speech whenever he testified anyway and then said "I don't recall" or "I wasn't part of that decision making process" whenever he was asked a question.
And anyone who talks about their intelligence the way you just did is invariably a dumbass who is butthurt about someone else exposing the fact he is a dumbass.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 09-01-2007 at 05:08 AM.
yep, looks like gonzo fell hook-line-and-sinker to leftist propaganda. he turned out to be weak sauce.
"99%+++ percentile of intelligence."
self-proclaimed conservatives create their own reality, which is really a fantasy.
eg,
"fair and balanced",
"we are winning, absolutely"
"you're doing a heckuva job, brownie"
OK, saying so 99%+++, I was being a bit y. I new I shouldn't have said anything, or at least used not used so many plusses. I am at the 99.91% IQ at an IQ of 147.
I know some you refuse to believe such things. That's OK. Jumping to conclusions and laughing just show how petty you are about such matters.
The only petty person is the one posting his IQ after demonstrating he didn't know where Darfur is and blaming the Clinton administration for not intervening there two years after it left office.
You call me petty over responding to your statement of me lacking intelligence? It's a no win with you because you are the petty one, so low in self esteem you have to find fault in other people. Words, words, words... Where is the substance?
Oh that's right, you have nothing to show I'm wrong. You ignore all the pertinent points I make, and switch topic. It doesn't matter what I say. You have made up your mind. Please drop it and stay with the subject of the thread.
You are a loser. You cannot respond on the subject matter to my point.
Please answer my questions in past threads that you ignored. What did Mueller say? What did Negroponte say? You are making claims of my thoughts yet I have not stated such things. I cannot agree with your statements of them without seeing what you say they said.
How the can you claim to be intelligent and ASSUME so many things?
I'd like to interupt this thread to point out that I am at 103+++ intelligence this morning.
Again Master Chump, what did Mueller say do disagree with Gonzales? During his testimony, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee cannot get him to confirm it was the TSP which is why the perjury charge is being pursued.
Your assignment. Watch these two videos:
Mueller on Ashcroft
Fox News clip
Now Master Chimp. Please explain how Mueller contradicts Gonzales. Gonzales stated “other intelligence activities” … “it was not about not about the Terrorist Surveillance Program”
Please, please, please… Show me where Mueller disputes what Gonzales says. Partial transcript of above You-Tube link:
OK. This means he doesn't know other than hearsay what Gonzoles says, right?JACKSON LEE: So my question to you, first of all: Did you ever speak with either Mr. Gonzales or Mr. Card while they were at the hospital?
MUELLER: No, ma'am.
JACKSON LEE: And if you did not do that, did any of your agents speak to those individuals?
MUELLER: I don't believe so. We -- I arrived at the hospital after Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had left.
He is not willing to agree to TSP. He interjects "a NSA program."JACKSON LEE: The discussion -- and I don't know if you did arrive -- it was -- did you have an opportunity to talk to General Ashcroft or did he discuss what was discussed in the meeting with Attorney General Gonzales and the chief of staff?
MUELLER: I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft.
JACKSON LEE: I'm sorry?
MUELLER: I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft after I arrived.
JACKSON LEE: And did he indicate the details of the conversation?
MUELLER: I prefer not to get into conversations that I had with the attorney general. At the time I -- again, he was en led to expect that our conversations --
JACKSON LEE: And I respect that. Could I just say, did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?
MUELLER: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a NSA program, yes.
Like I said before, I have been unable to find anything that shows Gonzales lied about the March 2004 meeting. Please, where is the evidence.JACKSON LEE: I guess we use TSP, we use warrantless wiretapping, so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?
MUELLER: I -- it was -- the discussion was on a national -- a NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.
I are 110+++++ smart!
Why did Gonzales resign if he did noting wrong? Is he just a pussy? Why can't he do his job? Give me real reasons why he could not perform his duties as Attorney General - not this "defending himself" bull - you claim there is nothing he had to defend.
agent 99 has inside info. picked it up on his "ham" radio.
These questions have been answered as for plausible possibilities. He did not state a reason and I am not stupid like you to assume it was because he was guilty.
What did Mueller or Negroponte say to contradict Gonzales?
You said he did. Why cannot you answer?
Oh... That's right... You lied and cannot admit it.
I didn't lie at all, it's all up there already. You're just being a about it.
And you didn't answer the question why he resigned -- if he did nothing wrong there was no reason to resign.
Why did he resign?
LOL... There are so many possibilities and I covered some of them. I am not foolish like you are to claim something I don’t know with certainty. Resignation IS NOT a sign that he was guilty. He could have done it for the party, he could have done it because he cannot focus on work, he might just be sick of the situation and want to retire from public service. Are you really such a leftist kool-aid drinking lemming to only believe that it is a sign of guilt or weakness? I pity you. I pity those around you for how you must make your life decisions.
I have shown clear evidence to dispute your claims. You have not continued showing support for your claims.
My God. You have such a hard head insisting he is guilty holding on to innuendo as evidence that has clearly been disproved.
Again, you are no chump dumper. You are a first class chump!
What is the damning evidence. The resignation does not count.
Oops, apparently the Department of Justice doesn't agree that this is such an open and shut case.
Justice Dept. Inquiry Focuses on Gonzales’s Claims
WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 — The Justice Department’s internal watchdog disclosed Thursday that he was investigating whether sworn statements to Congress by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales were “intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate.”
The disclosure, by Glenn A. Fine, the department’s inspector general, came in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and was the first official confirmation that Mr. Gonzales was under investigation within the executive branch over the truthfulness of his testimony.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/wa...1gonzales.html
I wonder if Fine is 99++++ smart too....
Now you are saying because the IG is investigating things it shows that he is guilty? They are doing their job and that does not impact anything until they release their findings. They were already investigating the firings anyway. They are suppose to "inspect" things. Especially "general" things withing their sphere of control.
Do you even know what an IG investigation is? Tell me that you are not moronic enough to believe that means he is guilty of perjury.
You still have not answered one simple question that is very pertinent. We need an answer to motive don't we? For the sake of argument, let's say he did lie. Why in the did he need to? There was nothing wrong if the truth was that he went to discuss the TSP.
Again chump. What motive did he have to lie?
Don't you see. This is just a witch hunt.
Also, one of his aides stated his reason for quitting was that his credibility with lawmakers had been too damaged for him to continue.
Come on chump. What did Mueller and Negroponte say that shows Gonzales lied.
I'm still waiting.
Stop avoiding the question. Keep doing so and I'm sure others will start seeing you the total fool I see you as.
Oh, he is....
Mr. Fine graduated magna laude from Harvard College in 1979 with an A.B. degree in economics. Mr. Fine was a Rhodes Scholar and earned B.A. and M.A. degrees from Oxford University. He received his law degree magna laude from Harvard Law School in 1985.
So what are your law credentials, WC?
Oh, yeah -- Fine was drafted by the Spurs too....
No, I'm saying he's being investigated for just the topic we have been discussing. His guilt will be determined by a trial, if it ever gets to that point.Now you are saying because the IG is investigating things it shows that he is guilty?In this case, it's an investigation to see if a crime was committed.Do you even know what an IG investigation is?
It won't matter. Even if a jury convicts him, Shrub will just commute.
It does show that the administration is possibly more corrupt than the dozens that preceeded it, which is no small task. Great, we're getting worse at picking the lesser of two evils.
There you go again, bringing up things that do not have any value in this debate. You idiot. It doesn’t matter because he is not making a claim right now as to Gonzales’ innocence or guilt. I think we can rely on his opinion once he comes to one, but that is in the future. Not in the ‘here and now.’ I’ve seen nothing to suggest Fine will play partisan politics.
I can read. I have some law books in my library. That’s about it. At least I can discern what information has merit and which doesn’t. More than I can say for you. It’s obvious you cannot determine important information from implied statements. How can you be so damn stupid as to imply I think I know more than Fine? How can you be so stupid as to imply Fine disagrees with me? At least I will not claim Fine will agree with me, but I believe he will. There has not been enough public disclosure of this IG inspection yet.
You still haven’t answered my questions. When can I expect anything intelligent from you? I can clearly dismiss the perjury charge you claim. There are four others you know, that we haven’t discussed. Did you know that? I’ll be glad to move onto another once I get a valid answer from you on the March 10 incident.
Neither did I. There are very real problems with Gonzo's tesimony, and this very intelligent man decided it was eoth further investigation.You idiot. It doesn’t matter because he is not making a claim right now as to Gonzales’ innocence or guilt.DuhI think we can rely on his opinion once he comes to one, but that is in the future.
You want a cookie?I can read. I have some law books in my library. That’s about it.Absolutely not, you're saying you know better than Fine and anyone else who sees very potentially big problems with Gonzo's testimony.At least I can discern what information has merit and which doesn’t. More than I can say for you.Actually, you implied it -- I inferred it. It's these kind of fundamentally stupid errors that lead me to believe you aren't as smart as you now claim to be.It’s obvious you cannot determine important information from implied statements. How can you be so damn stupid as to imply I think I know more than Fine?You say there is nothing worth investigating in Gonzo's testimony. He does. That is a disagreement.How can you be so stupid as to imply Fine disagrees with me?What more discourse does there have to be? I said there were issues with Gonzo's testimony. Fine says he's investigating those issues.At least I will not claim Fine will agree with me, but I believe he will. There has not been enough public disclosure of this IG inspection yet.Of course I did, and Fine agrees there are enough problems to investigate.You still haven’t answered my questions.I just told you the difference between implying and inferring.When can I expect anything intelligent from you?Why? It's being investigated.I can clearly dismiss the perjury charge you claim.Of course I do. I let you know Fine is investigating Gonzo -- how could you infer that I didn't know what issues he was investigating? Only a person of limited intelligence would make such an inference.There are four others you know, that we haven’t discussed. Did you know that?I'm certainly content to let Fine sort this out. You certainly don't come across as being as intelligent as he appears.I’ll be glad to move onto another once I get a valid answer from you on the March 10 incident.
Hey Chumpy Monkey... I'm still waiting for the proof you have that shows Gonzales is guilty.
I never said it doesn't warrant investigation.
I never said he is absolutely innocent. I claim the evidence we have does not bear out as fact for saying he is guilty.
You claim he is guilty.
Technical skills are my specialty. I suck at English. I was a strait A student except for English.
Again. What is the compelling evidence you have that Gonzales lied about the purpose of the March 10 meeting.
Will you ever answer the question?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions