| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Jean Guernon" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2007 06:17:33 PM |
| Object: |
Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
Just released, and CTV news speaks of hundreds of billions in oil revenues
from the West that go into taking over Iraq... This is the gist of it:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/26/europe/EU-GEN-France-Iran-Iraq.php
Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents in Iraq
The Associated PressPublished: January 26, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARIS: Iran has thousands of paid operatives working in neighboring Iraq, an
Iranian opposition group based in France said Friday, and it released the
names of nearly 32,000 people it alleged were involved.
The National Council of Resistance's allegations could not be independently
verified. A press officer at the Iranian Embassy in Paris, speaking on
condition of anonymity because of embassy policy, called the claims
"completely false" and said Tehran supports stability in the region.
The council is the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, deemed
a terrorist organization by the United States. For years, the Mujahedeen had
a well equipped and operational army of several thousand fighters in Iraq,
Iran's neighbor, but U.S. soldiers disarmed it in 2004. The group advocates
the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Its political wing has been based in
France since shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Mohammad Mohaddessin, who heads the foreign affairs committee, alleged that
thousands of Iraqis are working on Iran's behalf.
"The clerical regime, faced with intensifying domestic crisis and isolation
inside Iran, views its only chance for survival in the establishment of a
proxy regime in Iraq," Mohaddessin said at a news conference in Paris.
His opposition group released the names, alleged dates of recruitment by
Iran and the supposed salaries of 31,690 Iraqis. It claimed that most were
paid by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qods Force - a faction of the
Iranian military that the U.S. military says bankrolls militants in Iraq and
equips them with weapons.
It said that in Iraq, the alleged operatives were mostly affiliated with the
Badr Brigade, the military wing of Iraq's most powerful Shiite political
group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
The claims by the Iranian opposition group in exile came as U.S. President
George W. Bush authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to take whatever actions are
needed to counter what Washington said were Iranian agents deemed a threat
to American troops or the public.
The policy was in response to intelligence that Iran is supporting
terrorists inside Iraq and providing bombs and other equipment to anti-U.S.
insurgents.
However, Washington has not indicated that potentially tens of thousands of
Iraqis could be involved as the Mujahedeen claimed.
Mohaddessin said the list was compiled in 2003 and 2004 by the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard, and obtained by his group's "sources" within it,
declining to elaborate. He alleged that most of those named were still
working on Iran's behalf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.
begin 666 dot_h.gif
K1TE&.#EA`P`!`( !`&9F9O___R'Y! $```$`+ `````#``$```("1%(`.P``
`
end
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
29 Jan 2007 07:55:14 AM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 12:34 am, Perseid Rocks <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "John Lemke"
<jfle...@locallink.net> Spat the Words
"Perseid Rocks" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98C69E9AA47E1rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169948455.298592.227500@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 1:49 pm, Perseid Rocks <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169917545.822358.68500@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:32 am, "John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
"Perseid Rocks" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in
messagenews:Xns98C584D55047rrfkwrantispamattbic@
216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc
You'd know something about that, wouldn't you Randolph? You did just
that the other day when you changed the subject to something about
fear of Muslims. Another hypocrite, but then I've known this about
you for a long time.
In the other 40% Stephen just has a brain fart and decides not
to make any sense at all.
No, that would be you again, Randolph.
The gas outta' yo' *****, Stevie, takes the wallpaper off the wall
better than a sandblaster.
Sorry, I forgot to include those 20% of Stephen's responses where
he summarily accuses others of things that he himself is doing,
and the times he pre-emptively shoots the messenger when he
doesn't like the message.
The other 20% of the time he just says stupid things that
no one really understands.
So...
60% dodge, weave, change subject
20% reflecting, accusing others of things he is guilty of since
he can't think of anything else to say
shoot the messenger when he hears a message he doesn't like
20% stupid, incomprehensible things, spontaneously falling out
of Stephen's mouth. This may include but may not be limited
to massive cognitive leaps in an argument he is trying
to provide justification for, non-sequiturs or statements
which don't follow logically from a previous point, and
simple flaws in logic (apparently he hopes no one will
notice)
He's running out of room to maneuver. The truth is being settled out in
the world, not with any rhetoric here. But I think Steven will continue
his dance if all he has left is the head of a pin to spin on. It's all
sport for him, practice, a game to keep the general career skills and
his ego sharp.
He does seem fairly gung-ho about other people going off to
get killed in Iraq, and mildly curious and complacent about
Iraqis who are dying by the hundreds and being displaced to
other countries by the thousands.
It will get much worse for those Iraqis if we follow your cut & run
policy. I'm for allowing General Petraeus to have the increase in
troops he says are necessary to complete the mission. Isn't it strange
that the Senate confirmed a new commander who wants an increase in
troops? Why would some Senators vote to confirm the man, and then
immediately vote to denounce his plan? Very strange.
I doubt Stephen would be as serene were he to be the one
dodging bullets. Stephen is the perfect Bush lap dog. It's
bad enough when you let other, smarter people do your
thinking for you.
Make up your mind, will you? First you wonder why I DON'T allow
Senator Warner to do my thinking for me, then you turn around and
wonder why (in your warped way of thinking) I let other people do my
thinking for me. You're like those Senators who voted to confirm
General Petraeus, and then immediately voted to condemn his plan. They
can't make up their minds either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
03 Feb 2007 05:13:43 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Jan 29, 12:34 am, Perseid Rocks <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "John Lemke"
<jfle...@locallink.net> Spat the Words
"Perseid Rocks" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98C69E9AA47E1rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169948455.298592.227500@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 1:49 pm, Perseid Rocks <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169917545.822358.68500@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:32 am, "John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net>
wrote:
"Perseid Rocks" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in
messagenews:Xns98C584D55047rrfkwrantispamattbic@
216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169876127.228866.137640
@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc
You'd know something about that, wouldn't you Randolph? You did
just
that the other day when you changed the subject to something about
fear of Muslims. Another hypocrite, but then I've known this about
you for a long time.
In the other 40% Stephen just has a brain fart and decides not
to make any sense at all.
No, that would be you again, Randolph.
The gas outta' yo' *****, Stevie, takes the wallpaper off the wall
better than a sandblaster.
Sorry, I forgot to include those 20% of Stephen's responses where
he summarily accuses others of things that he himself is doing,
and the times he pre-emptively shoots the messenger when he
doesn't like the message.
The other 20% of the time he just says stupid things that
no one really understands.
So...
60% dodge, weave, change subject
20% reflecting, accusing others of things he is guilty of since
he can't think of anything else to say
shoot the messenger when he hears a message he doesn't like
20% stupid, incomprehensible things, spontaneously falling out
of Stephen's mouth. This may include but may not be limited
to massive cognitive leaps in an argument he is trying
to provide justification for, non-sequiturs or statements
which don't follow logically from a previous point, and
simple flaws in logic (apparently he hopes no one will
notice)
He's running out of room to maneuver. The truth is being settled out
in
the world, not with any rhetoric here. But I think Steven will
continue
his dance if all he has left is the head of a pin to spin on. It's
all
sport for him, practice, a game to keep the general career skills and
his ego sharp.
He does seem fairly gung-ho about other people going off to
get killed in Iraq, and mildly curious and complacent about
Iraqis who are dying by the hundreds and being displaced to
other countries by the thousands.
It will get much worse for those Iraqis if we follow your cut & run
policy.
Indeed. Stay-&-Lose is a much better strategy. It's bad if we
stay, and bad if we go. George dingle-berry Bush put us
here... but US involvement is not a long-term solution
to Iraq's problems, so it's best to let them duke it out now
amongst themselves. You've got yourself a little perpetual
war there in Iraq Stephen, and Bush may even invite the
Iranians to the party soon.
Wanting to keep US troops there is selfish. Your agenda is
simply to continue meddling in foreign countries' internal
affairs.
I'm for allowing General Petraeus to have the increase in
troops he says are necessary to complete the mission.
I'm sure you are for it, as long as you're not the one over
there dodging bullets. You really think 48,000 additional
troops for 6 months is going to 'accomplish the mission' ?
I recall someone saying 'mission accomplished' back in 2003.
Iraq is in chaos man. Get a clue. It's now the ideological
battleground for the shiites, sunnis, kurds, christians,
and neocons to duke it out. Iran and Syria are sending
their fighters and weapons in, and Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
and others are following suit.
Isn't it strange
that the Senate confirmed a new commander who wants an increase in
troops? Why would some Senators vote to confirm the man, and then
immediately vote to denounce his plan? Very strange.
I doubt Stephen would be as serene were he to be the one
dodging bullets. Stephen is the perfect Bush lap dog. It's
bad enough when you let other, smarter people do your
thinking for you.
Make up your mind, will you? First you wonder why I DON'T allow
Senator Warner to do my thinking for me, then you turn around and
wonder why (in your warped way of thinking) I let other people do my
thinking for me.
You must have thought this somehow responded to what I said,
but you've only suceeded in losing your readers on this one.
Giant mental leaps generally are not good style.
You're like those Senators who voted to confirm
General Petraeus, and then immediately voted to condemn his plan. They
can't make up their minds either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
28 Jan 2007 07:21:54 PM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 2:35 pm, Perseid Rocks <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169948455.298592.227500@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 1:49 pm, Perseid Rocks <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169917545.822358.68500@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:32 am, "John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
"Perseid Rocks" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in
messagenews:Xns98C584D55047rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc
You'd know something about that, wouldn't you Randolph? You did just
that the other day when you changed the subject to something about
fear of Muslims. Another hypocrite, but then I've known this about you
for a long time.
In the other 40% Stephen just has a brain fart and decides not
to make any sense at all.
No, that would be you again, Randolph.
The gas outta' yo' *****, Stevie, takes the wallpaper off the wall better
than a sandblaster.
Sorry, I forgot to include those 20% of Stephen's responses where
he summarily accuses others of things that he himself is doing,
That would be you, Randolph.
and the times he pre-emptively shoots the messenger when he
doesn't like the message.
That would be you, Randolph.
The other 20% of the time he just says stupid things that
no one really understands.
That would be you, Randolph.
So...
60% dodge, weave, change subject
That would be you, Randolph.
20% reflecting, accusing others of things he is guilty of since
he can't think of anything else to say
shoot the messenger when he hears a message he doesn't like
That would be you, Randolph.
20% stupid, incomprehensible things, spontaneously falling out
of Stephen's mouth. This may include but may not be limited
to massive cognitive leaps in an argument he is trying
to provide justification for, non-sequiturs or statements
which don't follow logically from a previous point, and
simple flaws in logic (apparently he hopes no one will
notice)
That would be you, Randolph.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
27 Jan 2007 01:14:05 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 9:19 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169917545.822358.68500@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:32 am, "John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
"Perseid Rocks" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in
messagenews:Xns98C584D55047rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis you're
referring to?
It's not necessarily psychosis because Cheney knows that what he's been
spewing is a pack of lies. A richly textured, tightly fitted,
determinedly
rationalized house of cards that reality will eventually cause to
flutter to
the ground.
Doc's problem seems to be Cheney's reaction to his daughter's personal
life being used as a political pawn. Your response bears no connection
to Doc's point.
Chuck Hegel for President.
The man's name is Hagel. If you're going to vote for someone for
president, you should know his name -- don't you think?
Oh Jesus...the Michael McDonald 'silent fit' syndrome.
The lead singer of the Doobie Brothers? What's he have to do with
this?
Pickin' at typo errors...a sure sign the poster's slippin' into a
puerile irrational state. LOL!
It's not a typo error when the same error shows up more than once. I
made no mention of the misspelling the first time John made the error,
but after seeing it again, I thought I should correct him as a public
service (and also to make sure Senator Hagel get's the respect he
should be receiving from such a big supporter as John Lemke).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
27 Jan 2007 01:36:48 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169925245.865311.29790@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 9:19 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169917545.822358.68500@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:32 am, "John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
"Perseid Rocks" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in
messagenews:Xns98C584D55047rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable
signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis
you're
referring to?
It's not necessarily psychosis because Cheney knows that what he's
been
spewing is a pack of lies. A richly textured, tightly fitted,
determinedly
rationalized house of cards that reality will eventually cause to
flutter to
the ground.
Doc's problem seems to be Cheney's reaction to his daughter's
personal
life being used as a political pawn. Your response bears no
connection
to Doc's point.
Chuck Hegel for President.
The man's name is Hagel. If you're going to vote for someone for
president, you should know his name -- don't you think?
Oh Jesus...the Michael McDonald 'silent fit' syndrome.
The lead singer of the Doobie Brothers? What's he have to do with
this?
Pickin' at typo errors...a sure sign the poster's slippin' into a
puerile irrational state. LOL!
It's not a typo error when the same error shows up more than once. I
made no mention of the misspelling the first time John made the error,
but after seeing it again, I thought I should correct him as a public
service (and also to make sure Senator Hagel get's the respect he
should be receiving from such a big supporter as John Lemke).
How do you know, you snotty little psycho, about the reasons behind the
typo error...are you psychic AND WHAT THE ***** DOES IT MATTER,
PSYCHO???!!!!
It's typical of people, if you understood human behavior well, numb nutz,
of folks commonly misspelling the names of famous personages in history,
even if their names are all over history books, current news, etc. Or
haven't you figured in that tiny, insignificant human trait of
error-making, Stevie? No I don't expect you'd understand it at all,
knowing you're such a heavenly perfect creature so controlled and so
coolly unemotional.
You fucking idiot...get yourself a decent life outside the net,
junior...and hook up with the foibles of real human beings...you know, the
ones unlike you. Maybe their humanness will wear off on you and you'll be
more human after awhile...
Should we carefully watch every word you type and point out your
consistent errors in spelling? Huh? Should we do that? Is this what your
presence here has finally distilled down into? Pettiness?
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
27 Jan 2007 07:34:54 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 11:36 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169925245.865311.29790@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 9:19 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169917545.822358.68500@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:32 am, "John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
"Perseid Rocks" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in
messagenews:Xns98C584D55047rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable
signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis
you're
referring to?
It's not necessarily psychosis because Cheney knows that what he's
been
spewing is a pack of lies. A richly textured, tightly fitted,
determinedly
rationalized house of cards that reality will eventually cause to
flutter to
the ground.
Doc's problem seems to be Cheney's reaction to his daughter's
personal
life being used as a political pawn. Your response bears no
connection
to Doc's point.
Chuck Hegel for President.
The man's name is Hagel. If you're going to vote for someone for
president, you should know his name -- don't you think?
Oh Jesus...the Michael McDonald 'silent fit' syndrome.
The lead singer of the Doobie Brothers? What's he have to do with
this?
Pickin' at typo errors...a sure sign the poster's slippin' into a
puerile irrational state. LOL!
It's not a typo error when the same error shows up more than once. I
made no mention of the misspelling the first time John made the error,
but after seeing it again, I thought I should correct him as a public
service (and also to make sure Senator Hagel get's the respect he
should be receiving from such a big supporter as John Lemke).
How do you know, you snotty little psycho, about the reasons behind the
typo error...are you psychic AND WHAT THE ***** DOES IT MATTER,
PSYCHO???!!!!
It's typical of people, if you understood human behavior well, numb nutz,
of folks commonly misspelling the names of famous personages in history,
even if their names are all over history books, current news, etc. Or
haven't you figured in that tiny, insignificant human trait of
error-making, Stevie? No I don't expect you'd understand it at all,
knowing you're such a heavenly perfect creature so controlled and so
coolly unemotional.
You fucking idiot...get yourself a decent life outside the net,
junior...
Look who's talking.
and hook up with the foibles of real human beings...you know, the
ones unlike you.
What makes you think I don't do that now?
Maybe their humanness will wear off on you and you'll be
more human after awhile...
Should we carefully watch every word you type and point out your
consistent errors in spelling? Huh? Should we do that?
Knock yourself out.
Is this what your presence here has finally distilled down
into? Pettiness?
If I had a history of correcting other's spelling mistakes, you might
have a case. I corrected the spelling of a man's name. I think Senator
Hagel deserves to have his name spelled correctly, don't you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
28 Jan 2007 08:50:29 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169948094.766218.70070@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 11:36 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169925245.865311.29790@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 9:19 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169917545.822358.68500@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:32 am, "John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
"Perseid Rocks" <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in
messagenews:Xns98C584D55047rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampth...@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable
signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis
you're
referring to?
It's not necessarily psychosis because Cheney knows that what
he's
been
spewing is a pack of lies. A richly textured, tightly fitted,
determinedly
rationalized house of cards that reality will eventually cause to
flutter to
the ground.
Doc's problem seems to be Cheney's reaction to his daughter's
personal
life being used as a political pawn. Your response bears no
connection
to Doc's point.
Chuck Hegel for President.
The man's name is Hagel. If you're going to vote for someone for
president, you should know his name -- don't you think?
Oh Jesus...the Michael McDonald 'silent fit' syndrome.
The lead singer of the Doobie Brothers? What's he have to do with
this?
Pickin' at typo errors...a sure sign the poster's slippin' into a
puerile irrational state. LOL!
It's not a typo error when the same error shows up more than once. I
made no mention of the misspelling the first time John made the
error,
but after seeing it again, I thought I should correct him as a public
service (and also to make sure Senator Hagel get's the respect he
should be receiving from such a big supporter as John Lemke).
How do you know, you snotty little psycho, about the reasons behind the
typo error...are you psychic AND WHAT THE ***** DOES IT MATTER,
PSYCHO???!!!!
It's typical of people, if you understood human behavior well, numb
nutz,
of folks commonly misspelling the names of famous personages in
history,
even if their names are all over history books, current news, etc. Or
haven't you figured in that tiny, insignificant human trait of
error-making, Stevie? No I don't expect you'd understand it at all,
knowing you're such a heavenly perfect creature so controlled and so
coolly unemotional.
You fucking idiot...get yourself a decent life outside the net,
junior...
Look who's talking.
That's right I'm talking straight at my blog and telling everyone that my
disabled ***** only has the net left as my life, and since it's such an
excellent venue for a writer, it's the perfect place for me to be these
days. As for you, I have no idea why you've been here every day except to
butter up your insufferably assinine ego.
and hook up with the foibles of real human beings...you know, the
ones unlike you.
What makes you think I don't do that now?
Maybe their humanness will wear off on you and you'll be
more human after awhile...
Should we carefully watch every word you type and point out your
consistent errors in spelling? Huh? Should we do that?
Knock yourself out.
You've certainly done that, and KO'ed yourself a number of times in your
convolution. LOL!!!
Is this what your presence here has finally distilled down
into? Pettiness?
If I had a history of correcting other's spelling mistakes, you might
have a case. I corrected the spelling of a man's name. I think Senator
Hagel deserves to have his name spelled correctly, don't you?
You do have a history of correcting posters' mistakes but I know that will
require you to retort, "Show me the archived posts where I did this."
Jeez...the convenient memory loss, the recreation of the present and
past...all earmarks of a psychotic personality.
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
27 Jan 2007 11:02:24 AM |
|
|
On Jan 26, 10:36 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis you're
referring to?Did you see the interview on TV? Or, do you want to recreate it by
limiting the perspective to the transcript?
Some human traits, Stevie, are not evident in a verbatim transcript. You
can't see the facial expressions, hear the intonation of voice, or see the
body language.
If you've lived for awhile and experienced all kinds of people -- sane,
insane, neurotic, borderline personalities, drug addicts, et al -- you'd,
right away, understand what I clearly understood when I saw Cheney react
to a question about his gay daughter and new granddaughter.
I saw that portion of the interview. I also heard it on the radio. And
I read the transcript. I don't see psychosis -- I see a man who is
unhappy that his daughter's personal life is being invaded by cynical
political opponents.
Now, Stevie, Cheney is at an incredibly low point in popularity -- little
more than 2 of 10 approve of his handling of his job -- and has nothing
much to lose apparently by getting *****, going silent, and staring
at Wolf Blitzer for several long seconds. He's also a seasoned politician
who knows fully well that in his desperate situation -- a failed Iraq plan
and corruption issues -- that any media interviewer will attempt to elicit
a strong reaction to get some interesting news. Knowing both, he should've
easily slipped past that moment without the extreme reaction he gave, but
he didn't.
I'm glad he reacted like a human being.
If you can fairly judge that the No. 2 power fucker in this government can
so overreact and still think he's of a healthy, normal mentality, then you
either didn't see the interview, can't understand the inappropriateness of
the reaction, or basically have lost all contact with reality yourself.
No, I just happen to have a different view of life on planet earth
than you do.
What Cheney said in reaction to that question, on paper, doesn't appear
nearly as damning as seeing his behavior -- and understanding it from a
standpoint of experience in dealing with human bahavior of all kinds.
Apparently, you seem unable to understand that a No. 2 administrator isn't
mentally healthy when he tells Dennis Leahy to '*****' and adds '*****
you', as well, in front of legislators and others as he did in 2004.
The man's name is Patrick Leahy (Democratic Senator), and Cheney had
pulled the man off to the side so that the encounter did not take
place in front of onlookers. The people who did claim to hear it
aren't exactly sure what the wording was because the words to Leahy
were not on the public record and were meant only for the ears of one
man -- Leahy.
If you saw his debate with John Edwards in Oct. 2004, he overreacted in
the same manner to Edwards bringing up his daughter's homosexuality.
Cheney has publicly claimed he accepts her sexuality and supports her, yet
is mysteriously pissed when someone even mentions her sexual orientation.
She went public. She's comfortable with it,
She's not comfortable with the way Kerry and Edwards cynically used
her sexual orientation for their own purposes:
CHRIS WALLACE: Then in the final presidential debate, the question was
whether homosexuality is a choice. Here's what Democratic presidential
candidate John Kerry said. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN KERRY: I think if you were to talk to ***** Cheney's daughter, who
is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's
being who she was born as.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS WALLACE: Why do you think that Kerry and Edwards went out of
their way to point out your sexual orientation in the middle of a
presidential campaign?
MARY CHENEY: You know, obviously, I was not part of any of John Kerry
or John Edwards' debate preps, and I've heard different theories about
why they would have done it. I think probably the one that's most
believable is that they wanted to make sure that everybody who might
have a problem with it knew that ***** Cheney had a gay daughter.
CHRIS WALLACE: And what do you think of that?
MARY CHENEY: I think it was a pretty sleazy thing to do.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195427,00.html
Quoting Mary Cheney from her book, titled:
Now It's My Turn: A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life
MARY CHENEY: "John Kerry didn't 'out me', nor did he offend or attack
me by calling me a lesbian. It wasn't a secret that I was gay, and I
certainly couldn't be offended by the truth. What was offensive was
that he was obviously trying to use me and my sexual orientation for
his own political gain."
and he has made statements,
and his wife, too, that they support their daughter. If someone had simply
said something like, 'Gee, Mr. Vice President, your gay daughter had a
little trouble getting pregnant with a lesbian"-- I could understand the
reaction. The question was appropriate, but it was meant to elicit a
reaction they hoped would make news ... because he had strongly reacted
before.
I see, so you know someone is not happy to have his daughter's
personal life made an issue, so the response is to make it an issue.
How cynical of them (and you).
If Cheney was a normal, healthy, mature adult administrator he'd recognize
the media intent, and simply passed it off without incident. Prior to that
incident, he was already bantering and gruff with Blitzer on other issues.
If you can't see the psychotic behavior, the behavior of man that acts
more like a sullen, bullying teenager, then it really reflects on your
personality and perception. Judging from your long behavior here, and the
recent EMMANUEL recreation
I didn't recreate anything. You did that when you attempted to bring
up a topic discussed a couple of years ago -- and you embellished it
beyond recognition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
27 Jan 2007 04:19:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:02:24 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:36 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis you're
referring to?Did you see the interview on TV? Or, do you want to recreate it by
limiting the perspective to the transcript?
Some human traits, Stevie, are not evident in a verbatim transcript. You
can't see the facial expressions, hear the intonation of voice, or see the
body language.
If you've lived for awhile and experienced all kinds of people -- sane,
insane, neurotic, borderline personalities, drug addicts, et al -- you'd,
right away, understand what I clearly understood when I saw Cheney react
to a question about his gay daughter and new granddaughter.
I saw that portion of the interview. I also heard it on the radio. And
I read the transcript. I don't see psychosis -- I see a man who is
unhappy that his daughter's personal life is being invaded by cynical
political opponents.
Now, Stevie, Cheney is at an incredibly low point in popularity -- little
more than 2 of 10 approve of his handling of his job -- and has nothing
much to lose apparently by getting *****, going silent, and staring
at Wolf Blitzer for several long seconds. He's also a seasoned politician
who knows fully well that in his desperate situation -- a failed Iraq plan
and corruption issues -- that any media interviewer will attempt to elicit
a strong reaction to get some interesting news. Knowing both, he should've
easily slipped past that moment without the extreme reaction he gave, but
he didn't.
I'm glad he reacted like a human being.
If you can fairly judge that the No. 2 power fucker in this government can
so overreact and still think he's of a healthy, normal mentality, then you
either didn't see the interview, can't understand the inappropriateness of
the reaction, or basically have lost all contact with reality yourself.
No, I just happen to have a different view of life on planet earth
than you do.
What Cheney said in reaction to that question, on paper, doesn't appear
nearly as damning as seeing his behavior -- and understanding it from a
standpoint of experience in dealing with human bahavior of all kinds.
Apparently, you seem unable to understand that a No. 2 administrator isn't
mentally healthy when he tells Dennis Leahy to '*****' and adds '*****
you', as well, in front of legislators and others as he did in 2004.
The man's name is Patrick Leahy (Democratic Senator), and Cheney had
pulled the man off to the side so that the encounter did not take
place in front of onlookers. The people who did claim to hear it
aren't exactly sure what the wording was because the words to Leahy
were not on the public record and were meant only for the ears of one
man -- Leahy.
If you saw his debate with John Edwards in Oct. 2004, he overreacted in
the same manner to Edwards bringing up his daughter's homosexuality.
Cheney has publicly claimed he accepts her sexuality and supports her, yet
is mysteriously pissed when someone even mentions her sexual orientation.
She went public. She's comfortable with it,
She's not comfortable with the way Kerry and Edwards cynically used
her sexual orientation for their own purposes:
Actually, it was much more likely that her daddy didn't like being exposed
for the hypocrite he is. It's certainly nowhere near as bad as, say,
exposing a covert agent for political retaliation ...
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
27 Jan 2007 07:49:50 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 2:19 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:02:24 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:36 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis you're
referring to?Did you see the interview on TV? Or, do you want to recreate it by
limiting the perspective to the transcript?
Some human traits, Stevie, are not evident in a verbatim transcript. You
can't see the facial expressions, hear the intonation of voice, or see the
body language.
If you've lived for awhile and experienced all kinds of people -- sane,
insane, neurotic, borderline personalities, drug addicts, et al -- you'd,
right away, understand what I clearly understood when I saw Cheney react
to a question about his gay daughter and new granddaughter.
I saw that portion of the interview. I also heard it on the radio. And
I read the transcript. I don't see psychosis -- I see a man who is
unhappy that his daughter's personal life is being invaded by cynical
political opponents.
Now, Stevie, Cheney is at an incredibly low point in popularity -- little
more than 2 of 10 approve of his handling of his job -- and has nothing
much to lose apparently by getting *****, going silent, and staring
at Wolf Blitzer for several long seconds. He's also a seasoned politician
who knows fully well that in his desperate situation -- a failed Iraq plan
and corruption issues -- that any media interviewer will attempt to elicit
a strong reaction to get some interesting news. Knowing both, he should've
easily slipped past that moment without the extreme reaction he gave, but
he didn't.
I'm glad he reacted like a human being.
If you can fairly judge that the No. 2 power fucker in this government can
so overreact and still think he's of a healthy, normal mentality, then you
either didn't see the interview, can't understand the inappropriateness of
the reaction, or basically have lost all contact with reality yourself.
No, I just happen to have a different view of life on planet earth
than you do.
What Cheney said in reaction to that question, on paper, doesn't appear
nearly as damning as seeing his behavior -- and understanding it from a
standpoint of experience in dealing with human bahavior of all kinds.
Apparently, you seem unable to understand that a No. 2 administrator isn't
mentally healthy when he tells Dennis Leahy to '*****' and adds '*****
you', as well, in front of legislators and others as he did in 2004.
The man's name is Patrick Leahy (Democratic Senator), and Cheney had
pulled the man off to the side so that the encounter did not take
place in front of onlookers. The people who did claim to hear it
aren't exactly sure what the wording was because the words to Leahy
were not on the public record and were meant only for the ears of one
man -- Leahy.
If you saw his debate with John Edwards in Oct. 2004, he overreacted in
the same manner to Edwards bringing up his daughter's homosexuality.
Cheney has publicly claimed he accepts her sexuality and supports her, yet
is mysteriously pissed when someone even mentions her sexual orientation.
She went public. She's comfortable with it,
She's not comfortable with the way Kerry and Edwards cynically used
her sexual orientation for their own purposes:
Actually, it was much more likely that her daddy didn't like being exposed
for the hypocrite he is.
Uh, we were discussing whether Mary Cheney was comfortable with it, or
not. As I showed by her own words, she was not. If you want to change
the subject to her Dad's supposed hypocrisy, just say so. And if
that's the case, please back up your argument with some documentation
showing his hypocrisy.
It's certainly nowhere near as bad as, say,
exposing a covert agent for political retaliation ...
Are you referring to Richard Armitage?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid Rocks" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
28 Jan 2007 12:41:01 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Jan 27, 2:19 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:02:24 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:36 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis you're
referring to?Did you see the interview on TV? Or, do you want to
recreate it by
limiting the perspective to the transcript?
Some human traits, Stevie, are not evident in a verbatim transcript.
You can't see the facial expressions, hear the intonation of voice,
or see the body language.
If you've lived for awhile and experienced all kinds of people --
sane, insane, neurotic, borderline personalities, drug addicts, et
al -- you'd, right away, understand what I clearly understood when I
saw Cheney react to a question about his gay daughter and new
granddaughter.
I saw that portion of the interview. I also heard it on the radio.
And I read the transcript. I don't see psychosis -- I see a man who
is unhappy that his daughter's personal life is being invaded by
cynical political opponents.
Now, Stevie, Cheney is at an incredibly low point in popularity --
little more than 2 of 10 approve of his handling of his job -- and
has nothing much to lose apparently by getting *****, going
silent, and staring at Wolf Blitzer for several long seconds. He's
also a seasoned politician who knows fully well that in his
desperate situation -- a failed Iraq plan and corruption issues --
that any media interviewer will attempt to elicit a strong reaction
to get some interesting news. Knowing both, he should've easily
slipped past that moment without the extreme reaction he gave, but
he didn't.
I'm glad he reacted like a human being.
If you can fairly judge that the No. 2 power fucker in this
government can so overreact and still think he's of a healthy,
normal mentality, then you either didn't see the interview, can't
understand the inappropriateness of the reaction, or basically have
lost all contact with reality yourself.
No, I just happen to have a different view of life on planet earth
than you do.
What Cheney said in reaction to that question, on paper, doesn't
appear nearly as damning as seeing his behavior -- and understanding
it from a standpoint of experience in dealing with human bahavior of
all kinds. Apparently, you seem unable to understand that a No. 2
administrator isn't mentally healthy when he tells Dennis Leahy to
'*****' and adds '***** you', as well, in front of legislators and
others as he did in 2004.
The man's name is Patrick Leahy (Democratic Senator), and Cheney had
pulled the man off to the side so that the encounter did not take
place in front of onlookers. The people who did claim to hear it
aren't exactly sure what the wording was because the words to Leahy
were not on the public record and were meant only for the ears of one
man -- Leahy.
If you saw his debate with John Edwards in Oct. 2004, he overreacted
in the same manner to Edwards bringing up his daughter's
homosexuality. Cheney has publicly claimed he accepts her sexuality
and supports her, yet is mysteriously pissed when someone even
mentions her sexual orientation. She went public. She's comfortable
with it,
She's not comfortable with the way Kerry and Edwards cynically used
her sexual orientation for their own purposes:
Actually, it was much more likely that her daddy didn't like being
exposed for the hypocrite he is.
Uh, we were discussing whether Mary Cheney was comfortable with it, or
not. As I showed by her own words, she was not. If you want to change
the subject to her Dad's supposed hypocrisy, just say so. And if
that's the case, please back up your argument with some documentation
showing his hypocrisy.
It's certainly nowhere near as bad as, say,
exposing a covert agent for political retaliation ...
Are you referring to Richard Armitage?
She's probably referring to Cheney being obsessed over Joe
Wilson's report about Saddam never having tried to buy uranium
from Niger.
Armitage, as I recall, was attached to the Secretary of State's
office (nothing to do with the VP's office).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
28 Jan 2007 01:15:05 AM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 10:41 pm, Perseid Rocks <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Jan 27, 2:19 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:02:24 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:36 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis you're
referring to?Did you see the interview on TV? Or, do you want to
recreate it by
limiting the perspective to the transcript?
Some human traits, Stevie, are not evident in a verbatim transcript.
You can't see the facial expressions, hear the intonation of voice,
or see the body language.
If you've lived for awhile and experienced all kinds of people --
sane, insane, neurotic, borderline personalities, drug addicts, et
al -- you'd, right away, understand what I clearly understood when I
saw Cheney react to a question about his gay daughter and new
granddaughter.
I saw that portion of the interview. I also heard it on the radio.
And I read the transcript. I don't see psychosis -- I see a man who
is unhappy that his daughter's personal life is being invaded by
cynical political opponents.
Now, Stevie, Cheney is at an incredibly low point in popularity --
little more than 2 of 10 approve of his handling of his job -- and
has nothing much to lose apparently by getting *****, going
silent, and staring at Wolf Blitzer for several long seconds. He's
also a seasoned politician who knows fully well that in his
desperate situation -- a failed Iraq plan and corruption issues --
that any media interviewer will attempt to elicit a strong reaction
to get some interesting news. Knowing both, he should've easily
slipped past that moment without the extreme reaction he gave, but
he didn't.
I'm glad he reacted like a human being.
If you can fairly judge that the No. 2 power fucker in this
government can so overreact and still think he's of a healthy,
normal mentality, then you either didn't see the interview, can't
understand the inappropriateness of the reaction, or basically have
lost all contact with reality yourself.
No, I just happen to have a different view of life on planet earth
than you do.
What Cheney said in reaction to that question, on paper, doesn't
appear nearly as damning as seeing his behavior -- and understanding
it from a standpoint of experience in dealing with human bahavior of
all kinds. Apparently, you seem unable to understand that a No. 2
administrator isn't mentally healthy when he tells Dennis Leahy to
'*****' and adds '***** you', as well, in front of legislators and
others as he did in 2004.
The man's name is Patrick Leahy (Democratic Senator), and Cheney had
pulled the man off to the side so that the encounter did not take
place in front of onlookers. The people who did claim to hear it
aren't exactly sure what the wording was because the words to Leahy
were not on the public record and were meant only for the ears of one
man -- Leahy.
If you saw his debate with John Edwards in Oct. 2004, he overreacted
in the same manner to Edwards bringing up his daughter's
homosexuality. Cheney has publicly claimed he accepts her sexuality
and supports her, yet is mysteriously pissed when someone even
mentions her sexual orientation. She went public. She's comfortable
with it,
She's not comfortable with the way Kerry and Edwards cynically used
her sexual orientation for their own purposes:
Actually, it was much more likely that her daddy didn't like being
exposed for the hypocrite he is.
Uh, we were discussing whether Mary Cheney was comfortable with it, or
not. As I showed by her own words, she was not. If you want to change
the subject to her Dad's supposed hypocrisy, just say so. And if
that's the case, please back up your argument with some documentation
showing his hypocrisy.
It's certainly nowhere near as bad as, say,
exposing a covert agent for political retaliation ...
Are you referring to Richard Armitage?
She's probably referring to Cheney being obsessed over Joe
Wilson's report about Saddam never having tried to buy uranium
from Niger.
That's not what she said.
Armitage, as I recall, was attached to the Secretary of State's
office (nothing to do with the VP's office).
Armitage was the guy who outed Valerie Plame.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
28 Jan 2007 07:28:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:41:01 -0600, Perseid Rocks wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Jan 27, 2:19 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:02:24 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:36 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis you're
referring to?Did you see the interview on TV? Or, do you want to
recreate it by
limiting the perspective to the transcript?
Some human traits, Stevie, are not evident in a verbatim transcript.
You can't see the facial expressions, hear the intonation of voice,
or see the body language.
If you've lived for awhile and experienced all kinds of people --
sane, insane, neurotic, borderline personalities, drug addicts, et
al -- you'd, right away, understand what I clearly understood when I
saw Cheney react to a question about his gay daughter and new
granddaughter.
I saw that portion of the interview. I also heard it on the radio.
And I read the transcript. I don't see psychosis -- I see a man who
is unhappy that his daughter's personal life is being invaded by
cynical political opponents.
Now, Stevie, Cheney is at an incredibly low point in popularity --
little more than 2 of 10 approve of his handling of his job -- and
has nothing much to lose apparently by getting *****, going
silent, and staring at Wolf Blitzer for several long seconds. He's
also a seasoned politician who knows fully well that in his
desperate situation -- a failed Iraq plan and corruption issues --
that any media interviewer will attempt to elicit a strong reaction
to get some interesting news. Knowing both, he should've easily
slipped past that moment without the extreme reaction he gave, but
he didn't.
I'm glad he reacted like a human being.
If you can fairly judge that the No. 2 power fucker in this
government can so overreact and still think he's of a healthy,
normal mentality, then you either didn't see the interview, can't
understand the inappropriateness of the reaction, or basically have
lost all contact with reality yourself.
No, I just happen to have a different view of life on planet earth
than you do.
What Cheney said in reaction to that question, on paper, doesn't
appear nearly as damning as seeing his behavior -- and understanding
it from a standpoint of experience in dealing with human bahavior of
all kinds. Apparently, you seem unable to understand that a No. 2
administrator isn't mentally healthy when he tells Dennis Leahy to
'*****' and adds '***** you', as well, in front of legislators and
others as he did in 2004.
The man's name is Patrick Leahy (Democratic Senator), and Cheney had
pulled the man off to the side so that the encounter did not take
place in front of onlookers. The people who did claim to hear it
aren't exactly sure what the wording was because the words to Leahy
were not on the public record and were meant only for the ears of one
man -- Leahy.
If you saw his debate with John Edwards in Oct. 2004, he overreacted
in the same manner to Edwards bringing up his daughter's
homosexuality. Cheney has publicly claimed he accepts her sexuality
and supports her, yet is mysteriously pissed when someone even
mentions her sexual orientation. She went public. She's comfortable
with it,
She's not comfortable with the way Kerry and Edwards cynically used
her sexual orientation for their own purposes:
Actually, it was much more likely that her daddy didn't like being
exposed for the hypocrite he is.
Uh, we were discussing whether Mary Cheney was comfortable with it, or
not. As I showed by her own words, she was not. If you want to change
the subject to her Dad's supposed hypocrisy, just say so. And if
that's the case, please back up your argument with some documentation
showing his hypocrisy.
It's certainly nowhere near as bad as, say,
exposing a covert agent for political retaliation ...
Are you referring to Richard Armitage?
She's probably referring to Cheney being obsessed over Joe
Wilson's report about Saddam never having tried to buy uranium
from Niger.
Ayup. And, by the way, that was another of Steven's attempt at "always
attack, never defend" behavior. Note the tactic - accuse others of what
you are doing yourself, and demand that they defend themselves. Others
here are calling it his superiority complex, but it's actually a technique
clarified by none other than the $limotologi$t$ and used very effectively
by the Bush PR team. (Don't know why the press is too darned stupid to
catch on after 6 years, but hey, they can't even get basic facts that
they're given right half the time anymore.)
Armitage, as I recall, was attached to the Secretary of State's office
(nothing to do with the VP's office).
Cheney was in the thick of the Valerie Plame bit, no way Libby would be
spilling classified information, or obstructing the investigation into the
leak, without first getting the word to do so from his boss. He's not
that stupid.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid Rocks" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
28 Jan 2007 04:46:56 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com>
Spat the Words
Cheney was in the thick of the Valerie Plame bit, no way Libby
would be spilling classified information, or obstructing the
investigation into the leak, without first getting the word to
do so from his boss. He's not that stupid.
Cheney must be involved... he's been scowling more lately.
It's the Cheney scowl factor... whenever it increases you
know he's in danger of having his web of lies and corruption
exposed.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
27 Jan 2007 12:25:56 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C741FD.88331950
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169917344.303212.183760@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 10:36 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis you're
referring to?Did you see the interview on TV? Or, do you want to
recreate it by
limiting the perspective to the transcript?
Some human traits, Stevie, are not evident in a verbatim transcript.
You
can't see the facial expressions, hear the intonation of voice, or see
the
body language.
If you've lived for awhile and experienced all kinds of people -- sane,
insane, neurotic, borderline personalities, drug addicts, et al --
you'd,
right away, understand what I clearly understood when I saw Cheney
react
to a question about his gay daughter and new granddaughter.
I saw that portion of the interview. I also heard it on the radio. And
I read the transcript. I don't see psychosis -- I see a man who is
unhappy that his daughter's personal life is being invaded by cynical
political opponents.
Now, Stevie, Cheney is at an incredibly low point in popularity --
little
more than 2 of 10 approve of his handling of his job -- and has nothing
much to lose apparently by getting *****, going silent, and
staring
at Wolf Blitzer for several long seconds. He's also a seasoned
politician
who knows fully well that in his desperate situation -- a failed Iraq
plan
and corruption issues -- that any media interviewer will attempt to
elicit
a strong reaction to get some interesting news. Knowing both, he
should've
easily slipped past that moment without the extreme reaction he gave,
but
he didn't.
I'm glad he reacted like a human being.
If you can fairly judge that the No. 2 power fucker in this government
can
so overreact and still think he's of a healthy, normal mentality, then
you
either didn't see the interview, can't understand the inappropriateness
of
the reaction, or basically have lost all contact with reality yourself.
No, I just happen to have a different view of life on planet earth
than you do.
What Cheney said in reaction to that question, on paper, doesn't appear
nearly as damning as seeing his behavior -- and understanding it from a
standpoint of experience in dealing with human bahavior of all kinds.
Apparently, you seem unable to understand that a No. 2 administrator
isn't
mentally healthy when he tells Dennis Leahy to '*****' and adds
'*****
you', as well, in front of legislators and others as he did in 2004.
The man's name is Patrick Leahy (Democratic Senator), and Cheney had
pulled the man off to the side so that the encounter did not take
place in front of onlookers. The people who did claim to hear it
aren't exactly sure what the wording was because the words to Leahy
were not on the public record and were meant only for the ears of one
man -- Leahy.
You're a liar, or you can't remember Cheney himself admitting he'd used
the expletives, and said he felt 'good' that he'd gotten it off his chest.
He said it was inappropriate, however. I remember seeing the interview on
Fox with Cheney saying this. The incident took place within earshot of
congressional aides, news reporters and photographers, Stevie, who were
assembled in large numbers for a photo shoot of the Senate. Why do you
vainly persist in recreating reality, Stevie, while hypocritically
accusing others of recreating it? You're a psycho, like the psychos you
support in office.
PUBLISHED ON JULY 1, 2004:
The Skinny
By JIM NINTZEL
WHAT THE *****!
And you thought John McCain was a straight talker! Vice President *****
Cheney brought it on during a photo op on the U.S. Senate floor last week,
telling Vermont's Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, "***** you" (or perhaps
simply "*****"--press reports remain sketchy as to the precise act that
Cheney suggested).
Questioned later on fair-and-balanced Fox News, Cheney said he had no
regrets about the remark, which was "long overdue."
"I felt better after I had done it," Cheney explained.
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=58040
***** Yourself, ***** Cheney
By Christine Pelisek
Thursday, July 1, 2004 - 12:00 am
***** Cheney had some advice during the U.S. Senate's annual photo session
for Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, who has been relentless in his
criticism of the no-bid contracts awarded to the vice president's alma
mater, Halliburton. A search of the Nexis newspaper database showed only
one U.S. daily newspaper - the Washington Post - quoted the vice president's
wish for Leahy's self-sufficiency: "***** yourself." Here's how other
newspapers and wire services handled the vice president's words:
L.A. Times: "Go . . . yourself."
L.A. Daily News: The headline said Cheney cursed.
The story, by the Associated Press, said Cheney said, "F- off" or "F-
you."
The Boston Globe: Referred to the expletive as a "vulgar directive" and
provided no other clues.
Calgary Sun: "(Bleep) off" or "Go (bleep) yourself."
Daily News (New York): "Go f- yourself."
Greenwire: "Go (expletive) yourself."
The Guardian: "*****."
The Weekend Australian: "F . . k off" or "Go f . . k yourself."
Agence France Press: "***** you" or "***** yourself" then
later changed to "F . . k you" or "F . . k yourself."
Miami Herald: "F- off" or "F- you."
The New York Times: "obscene phrase."
The New York Post: "F- yourself."
Newsday: " - yourself" or "Go - yourself."
CNN: the "F" word.
The University of Iowa's Daily Journal: "Go ***** yourself."
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/*****-yourself-*****-cheney/1566/
Oh, oh...the Michael McDonald 'silent fit' syndrone...pickin' away at a
poster's memory slip...you know who I meant, Mr. Perfecto. The last name
nails it down. What does it matter? You support a man who can't act civil
in public. Okay for a longshoreman in a tavern, but not for the No. 2 man
in government. If you think such displays of emotionalism are so
supportable, then it flies contrary to what you say you uphold, an
unemotional approach to discussion and debate. I'm afraid your Dickie
ain't in that category. Curious, how you support such a man and this kind
of behavior, but denounce it when your political opposition shows
such,..uh...emotion. LOL!
If you saw his debate with John Edwards in Oct. 2004, he overreacted in
the same manner to Edwards bringing up his daughter's homosexuality.
Cheney has publicly claimed he accepts her sexuality and supports her,
yet
is mysteriously pissed when someone even mentions her sexual
orientation.
She went public. She's comfortable with it,
She's not comfortable with the way Kerry and Edwards cynically used
her sexual orientation for their own purposes:
That is your interpretation -- 'cynically' as you put it. How do you know
it was cynical in nature, Stevie? Take a gander at this, kid --
In 2002, she joined the gay-friendly Republican Unity Coalition and said
that sexual orientation should be "a non-issue for the Republican Party",
with a goal of "equality for all gay and lesbian Americans." They point
out the fact that the organization soon vanished after the 2004 election,
and that Mary resigned from the RUC's board and in July 2003 became the
director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney 2004
Presidential re-election campaign.
In 2004, public attention refocused on Mary's sexuality when the Bush
administration supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed
amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit marriage to
heterosexual couples and also ban civil unions and domestic partnership
benefits. Mary Cheney did not publicly express her opinion of the
amendment until her autobiography, Now It's My Turn, where she stated her
opposition to the amendment, yet felt it important to support the
president's re-election bid as she felt only he was capable of protecting
the country from terrorist attacks. Vice President Cheney, when asked
during a campaign appearance about same-sex marriage, reiterated the
position he took in the 2000 campaign, that the issue should be handled by
the states. He added, though, that President Bush determined his
administration's policies and his policy supported the Federal Marriage
Amendment.[4]
The subject of Mary Cheney's sexuality arose again during the 2004
presidential election debates.
Both presidential candidate John Kerry and vice-presidential candidate
John Edwards mentioned her lesbianism when questioned regarding
homosexuality issues. Edwards discussed Mary Cheney after moderator Gwen
Ifill asked a question to the Vice President in which his daughter was
indirectly mentioned:
"I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting:
'Freedom means freedom for everybody.' You said it again recently when you
were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's
experience as a context for your remarks. Can you describe then your
administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?"[5]
Vice President Cheney responded to Edwards' reference to Mary without
continuing the same-sex marriage discussion:
Cheney Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he
said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
Ifill: That's it?
Cheney: That's it."[6]
At the end of the debate, Mary appeared on the podium with her partner and
the rest of the family. During the third and final presidential debate,
the debate moderator asked, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"
John Kerry replied, "If you were to talk to ***** Cheney's daughter, who is
a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being
who she was born as." This prompted an angry response from both Lynne and
***** Cheney. "You saw a man who will say and do anything to get elected,"
Lynne Cheney said at a campaign appearance in Florida the day after the
debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cheney
Edwards never said anything nasty or inappropriate at all, Stevie. And
Kerry's remark is reflecting on what nearly everyone already knew from
Mary's stand on the gay-marriage issue. Lynne Cheney's behavior is similar
to her husband's -- the idea is to be outraged, get emotional, strongly
denounce, counter-attack...and ultimately obscure, confuse the issue that
bothers them.
I know you love to recreate reality to suit your purposes here, Stevie,
which seems to be mostly to serve your religio-political fanaticism. Too
bad you can't be more objective, more rational, less, uh, emotional. LOL!
Anyone can spend inordinate amounts of precious time (more precious at my
level than your's, kid) digging up archived crap to support, to tear down,
etc. It's really a fool's game, and you're a fool for wasting so much time
on things that simply don't matter in life, Stevie...that have do direct
bearing on my life or your's everyday, but do, in fact, serve as some kind
of twisted catharsis for your personality and social problems. You could
be here twenty years from now, and hundreds of thousands of posts later,
still wading through your cathartic swamp of references, debates, zingers,
and nursing your ego. Jeez, you must've had somethng really bad get
indelibly imprinted on your poor subconscious some time ago...what was it,
Stevie, somebody harass you mercilessly, leaving a deep psychotic 'burn'
on your personality???
CHRIS WALLACE: Then in the final presidential debate, the question was
whether homosexuality is a choice. Here's what Democratic presidential
candidate John Kerry said. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN KERRY: I think if you were to talk to ***** Cheney's daughter, who
is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's
being who she was born as.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS WALLACE: Why do you think that Kerry and Edwards went out of
their way to point out your sexual orientation in the middle of a
presidential campaign?
MARY CHENEY: You know, obviously, I was not part of any of John Kerry
or John Edwards' debate preps, and I've heard different theories about
why they would have done it. I think probably the one that's most
believable is that they wanted to make sure that everybody who might
have a problem with it knew that ***** Cheney had a gay daughter.
CHRIS WALLACE: And what do you think of that?
MARY CHENEY: I think it was a pretty sleazy thing to do.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195427,00.html
Quoting Mary Cheney from her book, titled:
Now It's My Turn: A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life
MARY CHENEY: "John Kerry didn't 'out me', nor did he offend or attack
me by calling me a lesbian. It wasn't a secret that I was gay, and I
certainly couldn't be offended by the truth. What was offensive was
that he was obviously trying to use me and my sexual orientation for
his own political gain."
Uh...Stevie, I was talking specifically about John Edwards' remarks in his
debate with Cheney, not Kerry's remarks or anyone else's. They are two
separate entities. Edwards was perfectly polite and respectful to Cheney,
who strangely responded as if he was very annoyed from the beginning. If
you're gonna reveal your sexuality publicly, then you can expect it'll be
used in some way as an issue. Just as your Swift boat motherfucking
psychos chewed up Kerry's character, the opposition will use whatever they
have. I don't think the mild remarks made about his daughter in any way
compare to the vicious tearing down of Kerry's reputation as an ex-soldier
and combat medal-holder. If your piece of *****, Bush, had gone to Nam and
put his body where his purported ideology was, then you and your fascist
sleazeballs would be able to have some moral ground on which to judge.
Since Cheney himself sought one deferment after another, and never even
ran for elective office at any level in his fucking life, I think you are
prone to supporting scoundrels, cowards, assholes, liars, idiots, phonies,
and psychos, Stevie. And from your behavior here, you perfectly fit right
into all those categories. You poor mixed up kid...keep bailing the water.
It's comin' in faster...
and he has made statements,
and his wife, too, that they support their daughter. If someone had
simply
said something like, 'Gee, Mr. Vice President, your gay daughter had a
little trouble getting pregnant with a lesbian"-- I could understand
the
reaction. The question was appropriate, but it was meant to elicit a
reaction they hoped would make news ... because he had strongly reacted
before.
I see, so you know someone is not happy to have his daughter's
personal life made an issue, so the response is to make it an issue.
How cynical of them (and you).
Why is sexual orientation such a sore issue with Cheney? With you neoconic
nerdies? His daughter comes out of the closet, and he publicly supports
his daughter. He's a public figure. The news is always about public
figures, isn't it? If Gary Hart liked to ***** some gal in a boat called
Monkey Business, the media was right there to let us all in on it. And I'm
sure you conservative neanderthals enjoyed that revelation, which of
course Hart didn't want revealed. But that's the media. Do you propose
tighter control over the media? That could be fascistic, ya know.
Certainly, the news would have little to report that piqued the prurient
interest. LOL!
If Cheney was a normal, healthy, mature adult administrator he'd
recognize
the media intent, and simply passed it off without incident. Prior to
that
incident, he was already bantering and gruff with Blitzer on other
issues.
If you can't see the psychotic behavior, the behavior of man that acts
more like a sullen, bullying teenager, then it really reflects on your
personality and perception. Judging from your long behavior here, and
the
recent EMMANUEL recreation
I didn't recreate anything. You did that when you attempted to bring
up a topic discussed a couple of years ago -- and you embellished it
beyond recognition.
Kid, when your leaky boat finally sinks, all this chatter and
defensiveness won't matter to you any more. You'll be floating around in a
lonely sea, and not even one pelican or seagull will come by to squawk at
you, but you'll be wanting them to, anyway. LOL!
Docrodile :)~
------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C741FD.88331950
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="mail_icon.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/images3/mail_icon.gif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------=_NextPart_000_016E_01C741FD.88331950--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents (31,690 names released!) in Iraq (AP) |
27 Jan 2007 01:10:29 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 10:25 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169917344.303212.183760@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 10:36 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169876127.228866.137640@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
Cheney, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, showed unmistakable signs
of psychosis.
Could you please point out the specific signs of psychosis you're
referring to?Did you see the interview on TV? Or, do you want to
recreate it by
limiting the perspective to the transcript?
Some human traits, Stevie, are not evident in a verbatim transcript.
You
can't see the facial expressions, hear the intonation of voice, or see
the
body language.
If you've lived for awhile and experienced all kinds of people -- sane,
insane, neurotic, borderline personalities, drug addicts, et al --
you'd,
right away, understand what I clearly understood when I saw Cheney
react
to a question about his gay daughter and new granddaughter.
I saw that portion of the interview. I also heard it on the radio. And
I read the transcript. I don't see psychosis -- I see a man who is
unhappy that his daughter's personal life is being invaded by cynical
political opponents.
Now, Stevie, Cheney is at an incredibly low point in popularity --
little
more than 2 of 10 approve of his handling of his job -- and has nothing
much to lose apparently by getting *****, going silent, and
staring
at Wolf Blitzer for several long seconds. He's also a seasoned
politician
who knows fully well that in his desperate situation -- a failed Iraq
plan
and corruption issues -- that any media interviewer will attempt to
elicit
a strong reaction to get some interesting news. Knowing both, he
should've
easily slipped past that moment without the extreme reaction he gave,
but
he didn't.
I'm glad he reacted like a human being.
If you can fairly judge that the No. 2 power fucker in this government
can
so overreact and still think he's of a healthy, normal mentality, then
you
either didn't see the interview, can't understand the inappropriateness
of
the reaction, or basically have lost all contact with reality yourself.
No, I just happen to have a different view of life on planet earth
than you do.
What Cheney said in reaction to that question, on paper, doesn't appear
nearly as damning as seeing his behavior -- and understanding it from a
standpoint of experience in dealing with human bahavior of all kinds.
Apparently, you seem unable to understand that a No. 2 administrator
isn't
mentally healthy when he tells Dennis Leahy to '*****' and adds
'*****
you', as well, in front of legislators and others as he did in 2004.
The man's name is Patrick Leahy (Democratic Senator), and Cheney had
pulled the man off to the side so that the encounter did not take
place in front of onlookers. The people who did claim to hear it
aren't exactly sure what the wording was because the words to Leahy
were not on the public record and were meant only for the ears of one
man -- Leahy.
You're a liar, or you can't remember Cheney himself admitting he'd used
the expletives, and said he felt 'good' that he'd gotten it off his chest.
He said it was inappropriate, however. I remember seeing the interview on
Fox with Cheney saying this. The incident took place within earshot of
congressional aides, ne | | | |
