Your lies and accusations are a bore.
You are a disgrace to FR and in my opinion, nothing more than a liberal disruptor that should be banned, we have seen your type on here before. If you are not a liberal disruptor, then you have gone off the deep end and should quit while you are behind.
Pings to other than you are to bring your continuing harassing comments to myself and others on FR to their attention.
Oh really? Then let me refresh your obviously impaired memory.
*******
From thread titled: "Conservatives Question Dubya's Direction" on 5/29/02 at URL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/691352/posts where you clearly responded to the following post I made to Reagan Man.
BeAChooser to: Reagan Man
As for prosecuting Clinton and CO., thats always been a dead issue. President Bush said, he had no desire to go down that road and after three different IC`s had little success, its was politically stupid to attempt any investigations. That would only waste the taxpayers money and besides, American's wanted Bush to move on.
You are wrong. Most American's don't have a clue of the scope and seriousness of the crimes Clinton and company committed. That information was kept from them by the liberal media. For example, most of the media didn't even bother to tell the public about the alleged rapes. They didn't mention Sid Blumenthal lying under oath in an impeachment trial about lying under oath. I doubt 5 percent of the public are aware of the nefarious circumstances surrounding the death of Ron Brown. It is not that the public is lazy or would want our government to move-on in such serious matters as election tampering, blackmail of Congress, treason and murder. It is that this information was DELIBERATELY kept from them. And this information is STILL being deliberately kept from them ... but this time by the GOP.
... snip the rest of this post ...
171 posted on 6/1/02 5:22 PM Pacific by BeAChooser
*********
RedBloodedAmerican made the following post to me 2 posts later. Notice that it is his first post on the thread and he quotes from the post to Reagan Man I cited above.
********
To: BeAChooser
That information was kept from them by the liberal media
It wasn't released to the media. Man you are so full of BS. Gonna call you "BSChooser" from here on. Chit. Would you qucking fuit and go BACK to DU where you came from?
173 posted on 6/1/02 7:36 PM Pacific by RedBloodedAmerican
******
So we see that RedBloodedAmerican DID indeed make reference to something having to do with Broaddrick and Blumenthal ... and recently. Does this make you a proven liar, RedBloodedAmerican, or should we all give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just forgot about this little spat 5 DAYS AGO? Furthermore, let me point out that told ANOTHER untruth in that response by suggesting the media didn't know about those stories I mentioned to Reagan Man. Here was my response addressing that very point to you ... which went unanswered, of course.
*********
To: RedBloodedAmerican
It wasn't released to the media. Man you are so full of BS.
And you are a foul mouthed, lying move-on'er. Every single one of the items I mentioned was indeed available to the mainstream media.
All of us here at FreeRepublic were aware of the rape and assault allegations. It was NBC that investigated the story but delayed showing it until AFTER the impeachment vote and even then they only showed it ONCE following demonstrations outside NBC studies by Freepers. To this day most of the other mainstream TV news organizations have not even mentioned the rape of Broaddrick. Most of the major papers have never even mentioned it. In fact, the LA Times recently went so far as to unilaterally edit an article by George Wills to eliminate any reference to the alleged rape and abuse of women by Clinton. Don't try to tell us the mainstream press didn't know about this story. Many of us were calling them daily about why they weren't reporting it.
Don't try and tell us they didn't know about Sid Blumenthals lies either. During the impeachment trial, CSPAN showed the House Managers catch him lying under oath yet NOT ONE mainstream news organization or paper reported it. They knew about it and your a LIAR to suggest they didn't.
And as far as Ron Brown is concerned, you are LYING here too. If we here at FreeRepublic knew about the accusations of the military whistleblowers you can be sure the mainstream media did too. Some of those whistleblowers were even doing interviews on select radio programs. It is disingenious to suggest that the media didn't hear about the story since many of us were calling them about it. In fact, either ABC or NBC (I don't remember which) did a special on the internet and made a point of linking the "crazies" at UFO sites to those suggesting a conspiracy regarding Ron Brown's death. But they didn't ever tell their viewing audience what that conspiracy was about ... like what the military pathologists were saying. Their story was done to discredit the story and for no other reason.
And like I said, the RNC website didn't even bother to mention the Riady Non-Refund disclosure, a blockbuster issue if there ever was one, but the story was out there for anyone in the media to report. As far as I know only Fox News ever reported it. ABC, NBC and all the rest of the TV "news" networks, the LATimes and dozens of major papers all sat on the story. They DELIBERATELY hid it from the public. You are a LIAR to even suggest it wasn't released to the media.
Now since I was prevented from replying to your last comment to me on the other Bush thread because it was deleted because of the type of foul mouth language you seem to like to use, I'm going to do so now. You wrote:
What does Weisbergs comments about Klayman have to do with Bush?
Because recently we seen some of those self-proclaimed conservatives who are defending Bush (you and Howlin, for instance) putting forth the ludicrous notion that Jacob Weisberg, a strident Bush hater, is a source that is "accurate" and worth believing at FreeRepublic. And we saw Howlin, who first introduced Weisberg as a credible source, and whom you chimed in to defend when I asked her to cite a source for a claim she made, say the Washington Post and Slate are credible sources too. Now these don't seem the sort of sources that conservatives like you claim to be would cite as authoratative, do they? So it makes one wonder when you attack the notion that Bush is violating his oath of office and the Constitution by not investigating the crimes that Clinton and his democRAT supporters committed the last 9 years whether you aren't infact a democRAT defending Clinton.
What does Klaymans comments about Clinton/Brown have to do with Weisbergs comments not being accurate on Klayman?
You misunderstood. It's your belief in the accuracy of Weisberg as a source that is the issue. Since you believe that, perhaps you aren't very credible when it comes to what you say about Klayman or the failure of Bush to investigate the many Clinton era crimes. And since you mention Brown, perhaps you might explain some of the incriminating facts in the case ... why the government has simply ignored its own expert pathologists who say Brown might have been shot and should have been autopsied; how the original of the x-ray and photos which seem to back up those pathologists' concern disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP; why AFIP management lied about the case and destroyed the careers of the military whistleblowers rather than simply tell them why they were mistaken; why Brown's plane simultaneously lost both transponder and radio contact when it was still 8 miles from the crash site; who the identity of the 2nd survivor mentioned in Ira Sockowitz's report to State is; how the mechanic in charge of the missing beacon, which disappeared just before the crash and which some suggest could have been used to spoof the plane into crashing into a mountainside like it did, really died? Or perhaps you can explain why Howlin says it wasn't murder but refuses to provide her reasons (other than to cite democRATS, a bogus Clinton era report, someone who had nothing to say about the Brown case and unnamed "others").
Seems to me, from Bush's point of view (and Republicans), Klayman and Weisberg are on the same side of the fence. In fact, maybe in bed together. You don't know Larry. He is a liberal, protecting them. Add it up.
Reality check. Weisberg slams Klayman, BIG TIME. Weisberg slams Bush, BIG TIME. Weisberg does not slam democRATS. Klayman went after Clinton much worse than he EVER has gone after Bush. And Klayman, despite what you say, is still targeting certain Clinton and democRAT 'improprieties'. So how do you come to the conclusion Klayman is a liberal and in bed with Weisberg? Don't be ridiculous. He may be an opportunist or he may be independent. But whichever, he certainly isn't a "liberal". But those, like you, who use him as an excuse to dismiss the crimes that Clinton and the democRATS committed or excuse Bush's failure to investigate those crimes, might be. Add it up.
Let me tell you this: You either ARE Klayman (in which case, f*_k you), or you work for him.
UNTRUE on BOTH accounts ... and just the sort of foul language and non-fact-filled response we've come to expect from move-on'ers who are doing everything in their power to make sure that calls for Bush to investigate the crimes the Clintons and democRATS committed the last nine years get no traction on this forum. Isn't it odd they also happen to be some of Bush's biggest cheerleaders on this forum too?
179 posted on 6/1/02 10:04 PM Pacific by BeAChooser
*******
I trust the Admin moderator will excuse my being forced to quote a post that now uses the banned term "move-on'er".
Now on to the rest of your post, RedBloodedAmerican:
You are a disgrace to FR and in my opinion, nothing more than a liberal disruptor that should be banned, we have seen your type on here before.
Really? I don't mind if Jim Robinson or moderators compare our posting habits and pick one of us to throw off this forum. But I don't need to silence you. I want you around because people like you only make my case stronger through your own dishonesty and avoidance of anything factual.
Pings to other than you are to bring your continuing harassing comments to myself and others on FR to their attention.
Oh I don't mind you proving to them your own dishonesty. And may I point out to them that you posted me FIRST on this thread and your post was nothing but harassment. It did not deal in ANY specific way with the post that you were commenting on ... which by the way, wasn't even addressed to you.