| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Hal Turner Quits!
He just proclaimed the last show tonight on WBCQ. Hes ****ed at WBCQ. Poor
Hal. Boo! Hoo!:( P.S. He says his audience is a bunch of losers. Brian -- Never under estimate the stimulation of eccentricity. Brian's Radio Universe http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/ |
I couldn't stop laughing. A guy calls Hal and says he'd like to help but he
can't send any money cause he doesn't have a job, yada, yada, yada... but he's thanking hal profusely for all of the inspiration and the great things he does.. He goes through this about 2 or 3 times and then Hal goes off on him. Hal says, "You losers. You don't have a job, you don't have any money, Hell he says, "My listeners don't even have any teeth for chissakes." LOL He gave up his life for this? Maybe he'll find some consolation on Saturday when he meets with his friends. A true classic. neil |
In article ,
"Brian Hill" wrote: He just proclaimed the last show tonight on WBCQ. hahahahahahaha. he's done that before. |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... He just proclaimed the last show tonight on WBCQ. Hes ****ed at WBCQ. Poor Hal. Boo! Hoo!:( P.S. He says his audience is a bunch of losers. Brian Hal Turner is a fraud and a schmuck. He staged fake phone calls to his lame ass radio show to stir crap up so he could get free publicity. I would not doubt him faking his demise on WBCQ as a publicity ploy to gather curious listeners. Best way to tell him to go and F himself is not to listen to his show in the first place. Then he can go and buy airtime from Brother Stair and broadcast from his ****-filled cowpen in Walterboro SC. rotflmf-nao ! |
It's unfortunate, the number of anti-white talk shows are growing on
AM, we need more pro-whtie shows. Everything that was good and just is now bad these days. |
"Radio Patagonia 322" wrote in message sgroups.com...
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... He just proclaimed the last show tonight on WBCQ. Hes ****ed at WBCQ. Poor Hal. Boo! Hoo!:( P.S. He says his audience is a bunch of losers. Brian Hal Turner is a fraud and a schmuck. He staged fake phone calls to his lame ass radio show to stir crap up so he could get free publicity. I would not doubt him faking his demise on WBCQ as a publicity ploy to gather curious listeners. Best way to tell him to go and F himself is not to listen to his show in the first place. Then he can go and buy airtime from Brother Stair and broadcast from his ****-filled cowpen in Walterboro SC. rotflmf-nao ! Poor hal claims that: "I HAVE CANCELLED MY SHORTWAVE RADIO SHOW ON WBCQ AFTER SEEING "THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST" THERE IS NO WAY I CAN CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS WITH A JEW" What a laugh! Fact is, he got thrown off the air because he couldn't afford to pay them to brodcast his "show" any longer. The guy omly had about 50 listeners - what did he expect? It'll be sad to see him go - I don' think anyone as pompous or as stupid as harold ever had a shortwave show - the collective IQ of shortwave radio just went up about 20 points... |
"Brian Hill" wrote in message ... He just proclaimed the last show tonight on WBCQ. Hes ****ed at WBCQ. Poor Hal. Boo! Hoo!:( Ha Ha Ha! bye-bye Hal you pathetic schmuck! P.S. He says his audience is **a bunch of losers**. Probably one of the few true and accurate statements HT ever made into a microphone! The sad part is there are likely may other stiff pricks waiting in the wings to take his SW airtime slot with more of the same kind of ****. Brian -- Never under estimate the stimulation of eccentricity. Brian's Radio Universe http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/ |
|
|
Michael Bryant wrote: From: (RedOctober90) Whats wrong with free speech? Does it offend you? Like i keep saying, I am not going to appease special interest groups. Free speech is great! It also gives me the right to ridicule perspectives that are so far right that they're approaching anarchy. You openly reject both democrats and republicans as too liberal. You openly applaud Hal Turner's overtly racist ramblings. Free speech allows me to ask why we shouldn't laugh at you .Laughing is a free speech right, also. That is indeed why I laugh with gusto everyday at your inability to produce the facts to back up your ridiculous claims and fabrications! Still waiting for the posts! |
|
"Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: (RedOctober90) Whats wrong with free speech? Does it offend you? Like i keep saying, I am not going to appease special interest groups. Free speech is great! It also gives me the right to ridicule perspectives that are so far right that they're approaching anarchy. Free speech only limits the government from interfering with your speech. It does not give you the right to infringe on the private rights of citizens while you are excercising this right. For example, you can not go on a private website and post things that the owner of the site disagrees with... it is private property and the owner can censure you if they wish. |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV That is indeed why I laugh with gusto everyday at your inability to produce the facts to back up your ridiculous claims and fabrications! Still waiting for the posts! Don't stay up too late! Of course not! Why would I want to stay up late for something you can't produce? Your credibility borders on that of Richard Clarke. |
|
Michael Bryant wrote:
From: N8KDV Your credibility borders on that of Richard Clarke. Polls show Clarke's credibility in the eyes of the general public is higher than Bush's. snip As people find out more about Richard Clarke, and think about what he's saying his credibility will go down. There are numerous conflicts between what he's saying now, and what he said in the past. His close ties to Sen. Kerry's top national security advisor will become a factor. While he says he voted Republican in 2000, all of his political donations for the last ten years went to Democrats. Most people will probably decide he's just trying to sell a book. |
|
|
|
On 26 Mar 2004 16:06:22 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant)
wrote: From: "T. Early" Links (polls), please. I didn't save the link, but you should check out this morning's SF Chronicle for the connection between Clarke and Bush's polls dropping this week. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) Hmmmm...sounds like you don't really have any. Tracy |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV Here is a quote from Kerry: "Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle. … There isn't any press here, is there?" (Associated Press, Nov. 16, 1988). Your boy Kerry has some serious problems... Wow. That's the best you can come up with, Steve? Oh yeah, that's pretty traitorous. Given the fact that Quayle was a laughing stock and an embarassment to the Repiglicans, Kerry picked that joke up on the other side of the Senate floor. And you really think that you should be warning other people about starting trouble with their flapping mouths? Only your flapping mouth Fat Boy, only your flapping mouth! |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: N8KDV Here is a quote from Kerry: "Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle. … There isn't any press here, is there?" (Associated Press, Nov. 16, 1988). Your boy Kerry has some serious problems... Wow. That's the best you can come up with, Steve? Oh yeah, that's pretty traitorous. Given the fact that Quayle was a laughing stock and an embarassment to the Repiglicans, Kerry picked that joke up on the other side of the Senate floor. Can you document that? |
|
Michael Bryant wrote: From: "Mark S. Holden" As people find out more about Richard Clarke, and think about what he's saying his credibility will go down. I generally respect your contributions, Mark, but will opt to disagree with you, this time. There are numerous conflicts between what he's saying now, and what he said in the past. Yeah, I say nice things about my boss when the accreditors come around, too. Doesn't mean I don't think he screws up big time and needs to consider alternative options. His close ties to Sen. Kerry's top national security advisor will become a factor. While he says he voted Republican in 2000, all of his political donations for the last ten years went to Democrats. He contributed to Clinton, during that administration, and voted for Bush. Sounds like your standard cover-all-bases bureaucrat. How come you don't mention his contribution to GH Bush's campaign? Most people will probably decide he's just trying to sell a book. How many more former Bush administration bureaucrats are going to have to print books saying the same thing? The same thing? More lies and fabrications? Clarke's not the first to say GW was lusting after Saddam from day one of his administration. So? Saddam was in violation of many things Fat Boy, suggest you go look em up! How many more will it take before Powell and Rice, the counter-attack dogs, stop trying to destroy the personal credibility of anyone daring to make GW look less-than-pure? Credibility? What credibility? Why did Condi Rice change her mind about testifying in the last two days? Sounds like the Bush team takes the Clarke threat seriously.... Hardly! After a while though one has to put a stop to lies and fabrications. You know all about lies and fabrications don't you Fat Boy? |
From: Tracy Fort
Hmmmm...sounds like you don't really have any. Here's the SF Chronicle article an easy google search is probably within your capabilities. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG475RPQ41.DTL Bush is taking a hit. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
|
|
RHF wrote: Point of Fact. What about the meeting that J'f'K claimed that he did not attend for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In this meeting was a discussion (plot) of Killing some members of Congress. This was from the FBI Surveillance Files on J'f'K, during the NIXON Years. My guess is that Kerry voted for killing some members of Congress before he voted against it! |
Michael Bryant wrote: See you back here on election day, Steve. Are you leaving till then Fat Boy? |
Michael Bryant wrote: From: Tracy Fort Hmmmm...sounds like you don't really have any. Here's the SF Chronicle article an easy google search is probably within your capabilities. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG475RPQ41.DTL Bush is taking a hit. You'd better re-read the article! |
|
|
|
Michael Bryant wrote:
From: "Mark S. Holden" As people find out more about Richard Clarke, and think about what he's saying his credibility will go down. I generally respect your contributions, Mark, but will opt to disagree with you, this time. There are numerous conflicts between what he's saying now, and what he said in the past. Yeah, I say nice things about my boss when the accreditors come around, too. Doesn't mean I don't think he screws up big time and needs to consider alternative options. But his book and public testimony is at odds with remarks he made after retiring, and according to at least one member of the 9/11 commission with what he told them behind closed doors. His close ties to Sen. Kerry's top national security advisor will become a factor. While he says he voted Republican in 2000, all of his political donations for the last ten years went to Democrats. He contributed to Clinton, during that administration, and voted for Bush. Sounds like your standard cover-all-bases bureaucrat. How come you don't mention his contribution to GH Bush's campaign? Campaign contributions are a matter of public record and can be verified. The only indication we have of who he voted for is his word, given after people started questioning his motives. Near as I can tell, Bush 41 hasn't run for office in the ten year period I mentioned. Most people will probably decide he's just trying to sell a book. How many more former Bush administration bureaucrats are going to have to print books saying the same thing? Clarke's not the first to say GW was lusting after Saddam from day one of his administration. How many more will it take before Powell and Rice, the counter-attack dogs, stop trying to destroy the personal credibility of anyone daring to make GW look less-than-pure? Why did Condi Rice change her mind about testifying in the last two days? Sounds like the Bush team takes the Clarke threat seriously.... Dr. Rice apparently wants to dispute what Clarke said about her in his public testimony. Even Sec. Rumsfeld who normally seems to avoid direct political comment mentioned Clarke said he looked detached in a meeting he (Rumsfeld) wasn't at. Clarke's statements don't need to be true to pose a threat. I'm sure if he said something scurrilous about you, you'd want to correct the record too. In the long run, I think most people will discount Clarke's book and testimony. |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote: In the long run, I think most people will discount Clarke's book and testimony. Everyone except the wacko liberals! We'll be hearing about it until Jan 2009 when George W. Bush leaves office. |
N8KDV schrieb: that's what I think... No body cares about what you call "what I think". For sure you cannot 'think' at all, ole whale-whistler. Take a bath and beware of the whales. |
Volker Tonn wrote: N8KDV schrieb: that's what I think... No body cares about what you call "what I think". For sure you cannot 'think' at all, ole whale-whistler. Take a bath and beware of the whales. What brand of bubble-bath liquid do you endorse? |
Volker Tonn wrote: N8KDV schrieb: that's what I think... No body cares about what you call "what I think". For sure you cannot 'think' at all, ole whale-whistler. Take a bath and beware of the whales. Do you play with your 'torpedo' in the bath Volker? |
"Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: "T. Early" Links (polls), please. I didn't save the link, but you should check out this morning's SF Chronicle for the connection between Clarke and Bush's polls dropping this week. Thanks for the response and the link below. Unfortunately it doesn't support what you said: "Polls show Clarke's credibility in the eyes of the general public is higher than Bush's." I actually googled this before asking and, in addition to your reference in the SF paper, I can find no polls on Clarke's credibility, none on Bush's credibility post-Clarke (as a specific issue), and no polls -comparing- their credibility. The fact that Bush's -overall- numbers may have dropped slightly in the face of a nonstop onslaught from the "conservative" (LOL) media (including the paid commercial on Viacom/Simon & Schuster's"60 minutes"), has no bearing on the issue of the two men's credibility versus one another or whether there are any polls on that point as you said. Bottom line, your point is based on inference and can't be substantiated. For anyone who cares to bother to check (and that's admittedly a high bar in this country), the numerous contradictions, and, in fact, contradictions on top of contradictions, between Clarke's book and his actions over the last 8-10 years totally undermine him. The most obvious of these is his direct statement in 2002 that the Clinton Administration passed on "no plan" for dealing with Al Queda to the Bush Administration, but there are any number of others. Not that those whose main motivation is hatred of Bush will care. |
"T. Early" wrote: "Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: "T. Early" Links (polls), please. I didn't save the link, but you should check out this morning's SF Chronicle for the connection between Clarke and Bush's polls dropping this week. Thanks for the response and the link below. Unfortunately it doesn't support what you said: "Polls show Clarke's credibility in the eyes of the general public is higher than Bush's." I actually googled this before asking and, in addition to your reference in the SF paper, I can find no polls on Clarke's credibility, none on Bush's credibility post-Clarke (as a specific issue), and no polls -comparing- their credibility. The fact that Bush's -overall- numbers may have dropped slightly in the face of a nonstop onslaught from the "conservative" (LOL) media (including the paid commercial on Viacom/Simon & Schuster's"60 minutes"), has no bearing on the issue of the two men's credibility versus one another or whether there are any polls on that point as you said. Bottom line, your point is based on inference and can't be substantiated. Exactly. I read it too. He can't substantiate his claim based on the article. For anyone who cares to bother to check (and that's admittedly a high bar in this country), the numerous contradictions, and, in fact, contradictions on top of contradictions, between Clarke's book and his actions over the last 8-10 years totally undermine him. The most obvious of these is his direct statement in 2002 that the Clinton Administration passed on "no plan" for dealing with Al Queda to the Bush Administration, but there are any number of others. Not that those whose main motivation is hatred of Bush will care. Their refrain is anyone but Bush. To me that means that they would vote for Adolph, Joseph, Fidel or any of a lengthy list of despots. And I'll put Kerry in that list right now! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com