| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Joe Wilson: A man of class and integrity
Find out just how much class and integrity Joe “Restore Honesty” Wilson actually has – Tom Elia has the details on a speech Wilson made back in March at Florida State University.Â
Wilson has a visceral hatred of Bush, Rove, conservatives, and neocons and there’s no way this just all of a sudden happened after his wife was “outed.”Â
He’s had an agenda from the start – attempt to discredit Bush and the “neo-cons,” write a book about it, make a mint, and go around the lecture circuit bragging about it (that is, when he’s not discussing his wife’s CIAÂ status in the Fox News green room).
Jerk.
(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)
Related Toldjah So posts:Â
- Media continue to obfuscate the facts on “Bush authorized leak” story
- Plamegate update
- Former WaPo exec. editor Ben Bradlee: Woodward’s source may be Armitage
- The latest in la affaire de Plame
- Odd Plame/Wilson photo explained
- Joe Wilson: pro-Iraq war once upon a time?
- Plamegate: Woodward testifies
- Valerie Plame’s status was ‘covert’?
- Did Joe Wilson out his own wife?
- Fired up!
- Joe Wilson is a liar
- More from the “Joe Wilson is a liar” file
- Plamegate: Has perception become reality?
- Rove and Novak: Pieces falling into place
- Plamegate: a retrospective
- MSM on Nadagate: A miserable failure
- Indictments coming this week in Plamegate scandal?
- Press fawns over Fitzgerald, but Starr was part of the VRWC
- Plamegate predictions
- Libby to Be Charged in CIA Leak Probe
- Scooter Libby and Plamegate: My thoughts
RSS feed for comments on this post.
50 Responses to “Joe Wilson: A man of class and integrity”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Joe Wilson is a fool who does not seem to care about anybody.
Between the 2 Wilson’s, could they have been able to afford the life style they lead if it weren’t for the money Joe made off Valerie?
So Wilson found no evidence of yellow cake on his trip. His findings didn’t make bush happy so they declassify his wifes status. (she was actively engaged in an operation ascertaining the Iranian nuke program)Not only was she “outed” and her career ruined, but the hundreds of people who were part of the front company that was involved in the research were put in danger. It just wasn’t about her. how many former officials, memos, accounts, testimonies do you wingnuts need to hear to convince you the thing was cooked up by BushCo? Are you all bush cultists? You sure aren’t Republicans in the true sense of the word.
So Wilson found evidence of yellow cake on his trip. His findings didn’t make Kerry and Wilson happy, so they decided to lie about it in an attempt to discredit Bush’s status. (he was actively engaged in an operation to fight our enemies and ensure our safety)Not only was Bush lied about and serious damage done to the US and it’s mission in Iraq, but tens of thousands of honorable soldiers who are part of the front lines of the war on terror were put in danger. It wasn’t about truth, how many reports, memos, intel information, testimonies, acounts do you liberal moonbats need to hear to convince you that the whole Wison/Plame affair was cooked up by Kerry and the DNC? Are you all Howeird Dean and Saddam Hussein cultists? You sure aren’t Americans in the true sense of the word!
Right on, Severian!
Nero was going to war and the world be damned. Wilson got sent to look for yellow cake and found forged documents instead. He filed a report to that effect. Nero said Saddam wanted to buy yellow cake, in the State of the Union, which was a lie. Wilson said “they ain’t hanging that on me” and wrote a column. Cheney gets Libby to give Miller a story dis-crediting Wilson. Cheney then gets Nero to declassify the NIE used by Libby, 10 days earlier. A violation of law. Nero loses. Time to impeach Nero. Peace
See other post, since I will not repeat what I said here, which unfortunately is just about what you said twice in two different posts.
Steve, you really are a dolt. Wilson did not see any forged documents, and what he did see and hear actually increased the validity of the Niger uranium claim, contrary to Wilson’s lies. The forged documents you are so up on didn’t even exist when Wilson was sent to Niger, they didn’t show up until 8 months later, and Wilson was deliberately lying when he said he had seen them.
Still got the wrong Emperor, Vespasian would be a better analogy. You remember reading about him, came in after the disasterous Year of 4 Emperors, took charge of Rome when it was a basket case, restored the economy and treasury (hey, just like Bush), secured Rome from it’s enemies (hey, again, just like Bush, fighting enemies rather than attempting to appease them). You keep calling Bush Nero, and he doesn’t even sing!
The Mossad, created the forgeries which found their way to Italy. Not only was there no yellow cake, the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear use and the cartoons of mobile labs, were just that cartoons. neo-Nero is a liar and Nero is known as the worst emperor that Rome ever had. This neo-Nero will suffer the same fate. Peace
- Now to get back to reality, since “Fantasy Land” has been covered by Steve(FN) and the rest of the asshat trolls….
- As far as Plamegate, there is no “there” there. The left has gotten some of what they wanted by having it dragged out incessantly giving the NYTrash the opportunity to continue day after day with the “Leak” partisan BS non-news Ops-eds on the front page. When it turns out Fitz has no real proof of anything, other than Wilson is a pompus small peanuts partisan jackass that bragged up his wifes CIA affiliation, along with some press rats, then the LLWM can write about the sinister “cover-up” that must be lurking behind the failure to find any “governmental/White house official” wrong doing. Its a game. Dirty politics in the absense of a party plan like I said in an earlier post.
“Dirty politics” is one thing and lying about, then leaking selective intelligence to bolster the lie concerning an illegal and pre-emptive war that has killed or seriously wounded 20,000 men and women, is quite another. The neo-con/armageddonist/Zionist un-holy alliance must be exposed and dis-credited. Peace
- Wilson lied for political reasons. The war didn’t kill those 20,000 men and women, the Jihadists did. Other than that, what needs exposing is the traitorous leaks from the Democratic party, and the traitors to America that leaked them. But its coming.
- They’re all lined up in a queue for their day in court. The sooner the better. Liberty
- Bang
The WashPost has an interesting editorial today…..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html
And the WP goes further down the Rightwing road to destruction. Peace
Ah the best News story quote I have seen in some time:
Link
Next hyper-ventilating story the Democrats want to invent please?
File this one under…Failed Gotcha or DOH!
Wilson has a visceral hatred of Bush, Rove, conservatives, and neocons and there’s no way this just all of a sudden happened after his wife was “outted.”
Prove that entire statement, Sistah.
And you already know that “that is, when he’s not discussing his wife’s CIA status in the Fox News green room” is a completely debunked statement.
“Prove that entire statement, Sistah.”
Do you know how to read? Read this again (or for the first time, which is probably the case).
“And you already know that “that is, when he’s not discussing his wife’s CIA status in the Fox News green room” is a completely debunked statement. ”
No, it hasn’t been. I won’t challenge you to prove your assertion, because I know you can’t.
Hmm lets look at some quotes from Joe Wilson:
On Conservatives:
On Bill Kristol:
On Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed to be U.S. Ambassador to Iraq:
On Paul Wolfowitz , John Bolton, and destroying the U.N.
On the 2nd Amendment in a police state:
On Ann Coulter:
On Congress:
On Libby:
On National Security:
On Bob Novak and Jon Stewart:
Wilson on Time Magazine, Scott McClellan, & Karl Rove:
There you have it my friends, this is Joe Wilson.
Many thanks to KOS for putting together such a wonderful mix of Joe Wilson quotes that show his true character.
Hmm a little extra…
Link
Hope this helps put Joe Wilson in perspective.
sanity, as a general note, I don’t link up to Kos on this site, so I disabled the link but still gave the site credit for those quotes (some of which are mentioned in the Tom Elia link) to the Kos site.
On the issue itself, it’s amazing, isn’t it, the heroes some people on the left choose to have, you know?
No prob ST.
I just like to be thorough with my quotes, and give credit where I find them. It was nice that they had all his left applauded statements for them to drool over all together, made my task easier looking for his quotes. I didn’t have to sift through multiple pages for the next hour.
I did give fair warning though..lol
Yeah, Joe Wilson is a real piece of work all right.
I hear he is trying to sell a book now too.
Suprise….
- So Wilson turns out to be a post-Vietnam leftover hippy from the 60’s, 70’s. Surprise, surprise. You can see how he’s earned the reputation of a self-important opportunist, and lefturd “mouth”, (or mis-guided missle as we use to call them in the service), from his own words.
- The more you find out about this small time liar and crook, the more you wonder why hes not in jail. Of course hes just the sort of low life the left would find heroic. No surprise there.
- In general I’m finding more and more, whenever you see a person rile to the extreme against some murky “Nazi” monster, beneath beats a heart of a true Marxist, since they were always bitter sworn enemies, and the Nazi’x scare the hell out of them.
- The left always tries mightily to deny and hide their Communist roots, but when you peel away the onion, Marx and his instruments of politics are always there, and of course the best of the Nazi’s political tools as well, one of which “The Big Lie”, we’re getting to see first hand in the phoney rumors/smears of the lefts current “get Bush” “AnythingGates”, aided and abetted by the rabid anti-American left-wing press.
- Bang
Do you know how to read? Read this again (or for the first time, which is probably the case).
There’s nothing in there that proves that entire statement. Your statement is based on opinion and presented as fact.
Here are some facts, Sistah.
And please, I have respect for you, let’s be civil and not get into the “if you can read” 3rd grade level.
Wilson was criticized recently for allegedly talking about his wife’s CIA job prior to the column by Novak. Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely claimed on the John Batchelor radio show that Wilson had spoken to him about his wife’s role with the CIA while they were waiting together in the green room before appearing together on FOX News. He said this occurred on three to five occasions, first in February or March of 2002. Vallely also said Wilson was proud to routinely introduce his wife as a CIA employee at cocktail parties per a tabloid source.[22]
Wilson has since demanded that Vallely retract these allegations, calling them “patently false.” Wilson wrote to his attorney in an email included in his demand for a retraction: “This is slanderous. I never appeared on TV before at least July 2002 and only saw him maybe twice in the green room at FOX. Vallely is a retired general and this is a bald faced lie…. I never laid eyes on [Vallely] till several months after he alleges I spoke to him about my wife.”[23]
On November 7, 2005, Lt. General Tom McInerney (USAF Retired) contended that Joe Wilson bragged to him about his wife’s job with the CIA while waiting in the green room at FOX News. [24]
A compendium of the times that Wilson and Vallely appeared on FOX has revealed that there is only one possible date, September 12, 2002, during which the two would have been in the green room within hours of each other. According to Jeralyn Merritt, who went through the FOX transcripts to compile this information, “That date, Wilson’s segment was over 15 minutes before Vallely’s began. The Fox green room in New York is very small and contains an even smaller makeup room that only has one guest chair. Guests are by themselves in the makeup room. I assume Wilson would have been having his makeup done before his segment, so Vallely wouldn’t have been with him then. Even if they did overlap in the green room for a couple of minutes, it strains credulity to think the topic of Wilson’s wife’s employment with the CIA would have come up. There likely would have only time for mere pleasantries.”[25]
Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson questions the credibility of both Generals, noting “I too was a Fox News Contributor in 2002 and spent a lot of time in the Green Room with both Vallely and McInerney. I saw them but never saw Joe Wilson. What is really curious is that I know I spent more time with Vallely and McInerney than Joe Wilson ever did and the subject of my wife (or their wives) never came up.”[26] Former Naval intelligence officer and NSA analyst Wayne Madsen similarly pointed out: “As someone who spent a fair amount of time at Fox News’ Washington green room, I can say that Vallely is full of crap. When you are booked by Fox to appear, a car is sent around to pick you up. The car arrives with enough time to transport you to the studios at 400 North Capitol Street, usually 15 minutes before air time. However, most of that time is spent checking in and sitting for makeup. If you happen upon another guest in the green room before sitting for makeup, they are likely only minutes from air time — certainly not enough time to engage in a biographical rendition about your family with a total stranger. If two guests appeared at the same time at Fox in Washington, they were taken to different studios.”[27]
No, my opinion was not presented as a fact. People who come to this blog can read what I write and form their own opinions based on what I post and the sources I use, and by researching issues I write about. This is a blog, not a newspaper, and unlike the MSM, I don’t pretend to be objective.
And don’t insult my intelligence by using Wikipedia and quoting Larry Johnson. Just because Joe Wilson supposedly didn’t say anything to him about his wife doesn’t mean he didn’t say it to Vallely. I suggest you read around some other blogs, mainly Just One Minute, to get a true picture of just how well known her status was within Joe Wilson’s social circles.
I love it
You cited wikipedia as a source to dispute Sister T 
You do know that you and I can go in there and change the info at will, don’t you?
Seriously, check the dates. They weren’t on during the same days except once. Your biy Vallely lied through his teeth.
Ok, I won’t insult your intelligence using Wiki. First, show me your proof that they were together at Fox. That’s the basis of your argument.
“Seriously, check the dates. They weren’t on during the same days except once. Your biy Vallely lied through his teeth.
Ok, I won’t insult your intelligence using Wiki. First, show me your proof that they were together at Fox. That’s the basis of your argument. ”
That makes no sense. You tell me that “my boy Vellely lied through his teeth” about them meeting up in the green room and yet in the very next sentence you admit it happened once (to your recollection). I guess you just answered your own question.
Uh, sure Pam, whatever you say. Why don’t you go change that info then and see how easy it is? Tell you what – I’ll give you $50 to change that entire section I just quoted.
Put your money where your mouth is Pam.
Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.
C’mon Sistah, geez! Is World Net Daily right wing enough for you?
17th pp:
Again, tonight, Vallely repeated his assertions that he met at least three times with Wilson in the Fox “green room.” He said he is certain it was in 2002.
Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.
Good, then if she pulls it off, I owe her $50 – let’s see her do it.
My sources don’t have to be “right wing enough” for me to prove anything. Read what you wrote. You answered your own question. All it took was for Joe Wilson to say something to Vallely once for him to be correct. He recalls a few times meeting Wilson in the green room. Here are when those meetings could have taken place:
(the links to their appearances are contained at AJ’s – they didn’t copy over because I don’t have WYSIWYG in the comments)
I hope she doesn’t do it, because IP numbers of people who do it are recorded. Do you see the little “Edit” tab at the top of the page you quoted?
Are you attempting to assert that Wiki can’t be edited? Or do you know and are just trying to get Pam in trouble?
Smack!
Hey, Pam said anybody could edit it, and you backed her up. I called you on it. Let’s see it.
Here’s the gold standard of Wiki: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia’s three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors’ consensus.
Whether or not there’s trouble is not my problem. I didn’t make a statement I couldn’t back up.
Again, money where the mouth is, ladies.
Wow, Sistah.
January 10th, 2003 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on John Gibson’s show this day. Which is why Gibson has similar recollections to General Vallely. Vallely was on Cavuto which airs right before Gibson’s show.
November 18, 2002 (Vallely, Wilson). Vallely was scheduled for 1:10, Wilson was to be on after 3:00 PM.
October 1, 2003 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on Fox and Friends in the morning, Vallely on Cavuto. Depending on when Vallely came in to tape his section they could have met up.
September 12, 2002 – they were on the same show at 3:00 PM.
August 20, 2002 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on Greta and Vallely on Cavuto. Depending on when/if things were taped the could have run into each other.
All but one were hours apart. And based on tapings, etc., was one or the other in D.C. or NYC and the other not? And why does Vallely on 3 separate occasions have nothing to do but hang around for hours until Joe Wilson walks in (provided they were even at the same Fox studios)? Considering that the green rooms and makeup rooms at Fox Studios are reported to be notoriously small, does Fox encourage people to come in and hang out all day?
The only date that they were possibly in the studios at the same time (notice, I’m not saying same studio, just possibly a studio at roughly the same time) was 9.12.02. I can’t find any archive of studio locations.
Add to that – Joe Wilson’s neighbors and friends didn’t even know what his wife did. So, yeah, I’m sure he’s telling someone with a military background national security secrets that can get his ass in a load of trouble.
Hey jac how old are you? 12? And yes jac, neighbors did know what she did…I do love how he introduced his wife to us though! That awful disguise on the cover of Vanity Fair probably had people guessing for …moments
And as I’m reading back through these comments wondering where the confusion could possibly be coming from, I realize when I said “days” I meant “times of day”.
My bad. I’m able to admit when I’m wrong.
Pam – you want your $50 or do you want to insult each other and throw cute little smilies in every post? Which is it?
I’ve already “put my money where my mouth is” jac – stop being deliberately obtuse. I provided you with a link to a post I did that included a link to a New York Times piece that discussed the fact that Wikipedia is easily editable.
I ask again and please ANSWER the question I ask yo this time: do you or do you not see the “Edit” tab at the top of the page? A yes or no will suffice.
I have a feeling you know it, and you’re trying to get either me or Pam in trouble for editing it. The fact is, I don’t care whether you believe me or not. The facts are already out there – whether or not you chose to bury your head in the sand is not my problem.
Oh, and about your “not making a statement” you couldn’t back up, you haven’t backed up a single thing you’ve said here.
I’m going to give you the NYT link to the story which will hopefully ease your concerns about whether or not Pam and I are telling the truth. If it doesn’t, I think I’ll still be able to sleep ok tonight. But first, I want to recap how this dispute with Wiki started, and your implications assertions about it later in which you acted as though you didn’t believe me or Pam:
You: “Here are some facts, Sistah.”
Me: “And don’t insult my intelligence by using Wikipedia [...]”
Pam: “I love it You cited wikipedia as a source to dispute Sister T You do know that you and I can go in there and change the info at will, don’t you?”
You to me: “Ok, I won’t insult your intelligence using Wiki.”
You to Pam: “Uh, sure Pam, whatever you say. Why don’t you go change that info then and see how easy it is? Tell you what – I’ll give you $50 to change that entire section I just quoted.
Put your money where your mouth is Pam.”
Me to you: Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.
You: “Good, then if she pulls it off, I owe her $50 – let’s see her do it”. [note: you didn't respond to the link I provided which contained a link to the NYTimes piece that proves it.]
Me: “I hope she doesn’t do it, because IP numbers of people who do it are recorded. Do you see the little “Edit” tab at the top of the page you quoted?
Are you attempting to assert that Wiki can’t be edited? Or do you know and are just trying to get Pam in trouble? ”
You: Hey, Pam said anybody could edit it, and you backed her up. I called you on it. Let’s see it.
Here’s the gold standard of Wiki: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia’s three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors’ consensus.
Whether or not there’s trouble is not my problem. I didn’t make a statement I couldn’t back up.
Again, money where the mouth is, ladies.” [Sidenote: still no acknowledgement of the link I provided, nor an answer to my questions about what you were asserting, and if you saw the "edit" tab at the top of the Wiki page.]
————-
The discerning reader will note your inability and/or unwillingness to 1) answer my questions and 2) imply that both Pam and I were lying about the ability for anyone to edit Wikipedia.
Now, the NYTimes link (with emphasis added)
Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar
You were wrong. Pam and I were right. You can either acknowledge that, or you can waste someone else’s time somewhere else. At this point, asking me or Pam to edit it after my taking the time to point out to you the error-prone nature of Wikipedia, I would conclude you’re trying to get one of us in trouble. I have proved conclusively that the Wiki is easily editable (not that I needed a link – because the “edit” tab is at the top of the page for anyone willing to actually LOOK at it).
Yes sister, I see a tab that says edit. Now let’s see you use it for that purpose. Let’s see if it really will edit that post or not. There are lots of things (and people) in this world that say they will do something and don’t or can’t really do it.
Obtuse: “Lacking quickness of perception.” That really about sums up your & Pam’s perception of how Wiki works today.
…on to read the rest of your post.
Neither Pam nor I said we WOULD edit. Pam said she could if she wanted to. And the fact is you can. I’ve just proved it.
Get your facts straight, jac. You’ve been proven wrong. The classy thing to do would be to admit you’re wrong. I’m waiting.
Did you try FactCheck?
Link
There is a complete timeline that goes from 1988-1991 to November 16, 2005.
Interesting read, and all are backed by facts and proof provided of each statement.
Check it out, have a good read.
OK, Thanks for summing everything up for me. That certainly saved me the trouble of using my up arrow. I have always assumed that you’ve read the links I’ve provided when you respond to me. Additionally, you should know that I always read the links you provide. I, in perpetuity, unless otherwise stated, acknowledge that I read all links you send to me. Cool?
Now on to business. Wiki doesn’t work that way anymore. Especially for an entry like Joe Wilson’s. I’ve been told by someone who works on it, that it will be screened before it is posted. Your article is over 4 months old. In other words (and it’s even included in your article) there are people called “screeners” that verify things. Also in your article is that they’re changing policy to make Wiki more reliable and less prone to hacking and false information.
Fast forward to today – that’s what they’ve done. You both used the present tense. You’re both wrong.
Pam: “You do know that you and I can go in there and change the info at will” Nope, not anymore. Sorry.
Sistah: “Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.” Nope, not anymore. Sorry.
Sistah: “The classy thing to do would be to admit you’re wrong. I’m waiting.” Sage advice. I readily do it when necessary. Try it.
And I saw that article the day it came out. I’m sure you would have guessed that.
I’m out for now. Regardless of what it may seem like, I do enjoy bantering with you (a little less so with most of your readers). I hope you have a good night.
See HERE for a rather complete review of Wikipedia’s difficulties. It admits there are many sources of erroneous info, but alleges such matters are quickly caught. However, further down the page, it also admits that catching and correcting errors that are written in a “scholarly” manner, or to fit the style of the article, are harder to catch and correct. That political operatives have edited their opponents’ materials, to reflect negatively on them, and their bosses’ materials, to delete negative things, show how easily edited Wikipedia is. What I found most interesting was the founder’s comment on such chicanery. He said it was, “Not cool.” That inspires confidence, huh?
Sorry, jac, but your anecdotal evidence about “someone you know” just won’t do. And the “especially with an entry like Joe Wilson’s” bit was just laughable.
You: “Wiki doesn’t work that way anymore. Especially for an entry like Joe Wilson’s. I’ve been told by someone who works on it, that it will be screened before it is posted. Your article is over 4 months old. In other words (and it’s even included in your article) there are people called “screeners” that verify things. Also in your article is that they’re changing policy to make Wiki more reliable and less prone to hacking and false information.”
Me: the article is still valid today. Just to prove it, here’s one from March 29th:
From Wiki’s site (emphasis mine):
Face it: you were wrong, and Pam and I were both right. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing, outside of the fact that you went an entire thread trying to act like you didn’t know that Wiki could be edited and when it was all said and done you essentially said “it used to be like that, but not anymore” – and even that assertion on your part is false.
I don’t mind banter, but I like it alot more when the person I’m “bantering” with is a little more upfront and honest with what he or she knows about a particular topic. Let’s not repeat this again.
- Rebuking Lefturds, and their usual tissues of lies and convienient amnesia is a waste of bandwidth.
- When some asshat went in and redacted all of the FRELIMO history of Ter-ray-za’s Communist father, and the gal that runs Wiki said not a word, that was all I had to see. Wiki is useless for any sort of historical/political source now because the left has trashed anything that looked bad for its side. File and forget. Anyone like jac trying to use Wiki as a source is playing stack the deck. Losers…..
- Bang