Everyone knows this loser lies constantly. The question is, does he
know why he lies?
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
12 Oct 2007 01:16:30 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 2:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from!
Really? And yet all you can come up with is Noam Chomsky, whom I
accurately described as having supported Pol Pot by denying the
reports of the Khmer Rouge genocide, and downplaying the deaths he did
acknowledge by comparing them to the actions of liberated France in
1945. Deal with it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 05:19:12 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 5:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from! Anyway...I
repeatedly quoted your loser *****, when you said "Noam Chomsky is a Pol
Pot supporter"...You see, everyone knows that is a lie from the
Pathological Liar. Being a Pathological Liar, you Deny, Deny,
Deny...now that's boring...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Noam Chomsky is dead, which is too the good for the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 06:43:59 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 6:19 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from! Anyway...I
repeatedly quoted your loser *****, when you said "Noam Chomsky is a Pol
Pot supporter"...You see, everyone knows that is a lie from the
Pathological Liar. Being a Pathological Liar, you Deny, Deny,
Deny...now that's boring...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Noam Chomsky is dead, which is too the good for the world.
I'm sure Chomsky would be interested to know how he died, and when.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 07:21:22 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 7:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:19 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from! Anyway...I
repeatedly quoted your loser *****, when you said "Noam Chomsky is a Pol
Pot supporter"...You see, everyone knows that is a lie from the
Pathological Liar. Being a Pathological Liar, you Deny, Deny,
Deny...now that's boring...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Noam Chomsky is dead, which is too the good for the world.
I'm sure Chomsky would be interested to know how he died, and when.
Cannot tell from his thinking? He is brain dead from the strong
chemical
that was preapred for him, understand now?
Had you chemical lately, have you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 08:43:38 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 8:21 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:19 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from! Anyway...I
repeatedly quoted your loser *****, when you said "Noam Chomsky is a Pol
Pot supporter"...You see, everyone knows that is a lie from the
Pathological Liar. Being a Pathological Liar, you Deny, Deny,
Deny...now that's boring...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Noam Chomsky is dead, which is too the good for the world.
I'm sure Chomsky would be interested to know how he died, and when.
Cannot tell from his thinking? He is brain dead from the strong
chemical
that was preapred for him, understand now?
Had you chemical lately, have you?
I can tell that you're an ignorant Neanderthal, who obviously thought
that Chomsky was dead. He isn't...but speaking about brain-dead,
considering your inept use of the English language, that would seem to
apply to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 04:26:00 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 9:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:21 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:19 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from! Anyway...I
repeatedly quoted your loser *****, when you said "Noam Chomsky is a Pol
Pot supporter"...You see, everyone knows that is a lie from the
Pathological Liar. Being a Pathological Liar, you Deny, Deny,
Deny...now that's boring...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Noam Chomsky is dead, which is too the good for the world.
I'm sure Chomsky would be interested to know how he died, and when.
Cannot tell from his thinking? He is brain dead from the strong
chemical
that was preapred for him, understand now?
Had you chemical lately, have you?
I can tell that you're an ignorant Neanderthal, who obviously thought
that Chomsky was dead. He isn't...but speaking about brain-dead,
considering your inept use of the English language, that would seem to
apply to you.
You are the Neanderthal!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 04:26:44 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 9:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:21 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:19 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from! Anyway...I
repeatedly quoted your loser *****, when you said "Noam Chomsky is a Pol
Pot supporter"...You see, everyone knows that is a lie from the
Pathological Liar. Being a Pathological Liar, you Deny, Deny,
Deny...now that's boring...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Noam Chomsky is dead, which is too the good for the world.
I'm sure Chomsky would be interested to know how he died, and when.
Cannot tell from his thinking? He is brain dead from the strong
chemical
that was preapred for him, understand now?
Had you chemical lately, have you?
I can tell that you're an ignorant Neanderthal, who obviously thought
that Chomsky was dead. He isn't...but speaking about brain-dead,
considering your inept use of the English language, that would seem to
apply to you.
You are the Neanderthal!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
12 Oct 2007 04:14:23 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:21 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:19 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from! Anyway...I
repeatedly quoted your loser *****, when you said "Noam Chomsky is a Pol
Pot supporter"...You see, everyone knows that is a lie from the
Pathological Liar. Being a Pathological Liar, you Deny, Deny,
Deny...now that's boring...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Noam Chomsky is dead, which is too the good for the world.
I'm sure Chomsky would be interested to know how he died, and when.
Cannot tell from his thinking? He is brain dead from the strong
chemical
that was preapred for him, understand now?
Had you chemical lately, have you?
I can tell that you're an ignorant Neanderthal, who obviously thought
that Chomsky was dead. He isn't...but speaking about brain-dead,
considering your inept use of the English language, that would seem to
apply to you.
You are the Neanderthal!!!
I heard you the first time.
eric.
P.S. Nice retort..lol.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 11:30:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:43:38 -0700, eric <ericdavis500@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:21 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:19 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from! Anyway...I
repeatedly quoted your loser *****, when you said "Noam Chomsky is a Pol
Pot supporter"...You see, everyone knows that is a lie from the
Pathological Liar. Being a Pathological Liar, you Deny, Deny,
Deny...now that's boring...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Noam Chomsky is dead, which is too the good for the world.
I'm sure Chomsky would be interested to know how he died, and when.
Cannot tell from his thinking? He is brain dead from the strong
chemical
that was preapred for him, understand now?
Had you chemical lately, have you?
I can tell that you're an ignorant Neanderthal, who obviously thought
that Chomsky was dead. He isn't...but speaking about brain-dead,
considering your inept use of the English language, that would seem to
apply to you.
Not only his inept use of the English language (even though he's
fluent in it!) look at his username, eric .. "danisnewlover" I really
have to wonder if he thinks using that username is funny, or better
yet, if it's meant to make a joke of me? In fact, it's so stupid and
it's been dragged out so long that it reflects badly on him and *only*
him.
Poor Doc either needs to throw in the "comedy" towel or seriously find
some new material like yesterday.
Good to see ya, eric.
Cheers,
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 04:35:09 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 12:30 pm, Dani <d.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:43:38 -0700, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:21 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:43 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:19 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:22 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:51 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:33 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:03 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:20 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:50, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949180.468066.182670@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:01 am, Pers3id <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I want to see stevie in Iraq fighting for my freedoms. I'm sure he
wouldn't be quite so glib dodging bullets and frag-bombs hidden
underneath the road-kill.
I'm a military veteran, Randy. Are you? Do you ever read the milblogs?
No, I certainly don't. Of course, I'm not a half-witted war monger.
So that's your opinion of people who put on the uniform of their
country?
That's the opinion I have of people who put on the uniform of their
country douglas...if they're off to invade a third world country to
rob them of their oil.
There's that lie again, liar. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
We're not stealing their oil.
The only time one can be 'proud' to wear the uniform of their country
is if one's country is attacked by another and one is defending it.
So you disagree with Wolfy's opinion that the U.S. should have gone to
Europe even sooner than it did during World War II? In your opinion,
the U.S. should have *not* fought Hitler? You and Pat Buchanan. You
have far more in common with Pat Buchanan than I ever have -- or ever
will.
No, Stevie....you're the Liar. <yawn>
You're boring. Come up with something specific or shut the f**k up.
You're a Pathological Liar...you want something
specific?...whatever...what a potpourri to choose from! Anyway...I
repeatedly quoted your loser *****, when you said "Noam Chomsky is a Pol
Pot supporter"...You see, everyone knows that is a lie from the
Pathological Liar. Being a Pathological Liar, you Deny, Deny,
Deny...now that's boring...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Noam Chomsky is dead, which is too the good for the world.
I'm sure Chomsky would be interested to know how he died, and when.
Cannot tell from his thinking? He is brain dead from the strong
chemical
that was preapred for him, understand now?
Had you chemical lately, have you?
I can tell that you're an ignorant Neanderthal, who obviously thought
that Chomsky was dead. He isn't...but speaking about brain-dead,
considering your inept use of the English language, that would seem to
apply to you.
Not only his inept use of the English language (even though he's
fluent in it!) look at his username, eric .. "danisnewlover" I really
have to wonder if he thinks using that username is funny, or better
yet, if it's meant to make a joke of me? In fact, it's so stupid and
it's been dragged out so long that it reflects badly on him and *only*
him.
Poor Doc either needs to throw in the "comedy" towel or seriously find
some new material like yesterday.
Good to see ya, eric.
Cheers,
Dani
I am not the Doc, I am your true lover.
The Doc and Wolf are the child sexers, look at Doc say that sex
with 12 and 14 should be ok!! And the Wolf (friend of Doc) he go
where for vacation? To the child sex spot of Bangkok!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 09:16:41 PM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 4:23 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Show me the polls that report a majority of
Americans want an immediate withdrawal of
our troops from Iraq.
One. More. Time.
The war started three and a half years ago. The
time for an "Immediate" withdrawal has long
since come and gone. The best we could manage
at this point would be to withdraw some three
and a half years later.
"Lingering for three and a half years" is NOT
withdrawing immediately. Not by any standard
known to man.
Show me the poll that says the American people favor an immediate
withdrawal. Of course you can't, which is why you're playing word
games.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 03:07:45 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Show me the poll that says the American people favor
an immediate withdrawal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3BmpKTVJ6E
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
12 Oct 2007 01:11:49 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 1:07 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Show me the poll that says the American people favor
an immediate withdrawal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3BmpKTVJ6E
I watched about 10 seconds of that. You're kidding, right? Bill Maher
the comedian? I don't like Ann Coulter either, and asking me to watch
Bill Maher is no different from asking me to watch Ann Coulter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 10:44:28 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191723401.769011.12700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 4:23 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Show me the polls that report a majority of
Americans want an immediate withdrawal of
our troops from Iraq.
One. More. Time.
The war started three and a half years ago. The
time for an "Immediate" withdrawal has long
since come and gone. The best we could manage
at this point would be to withdraw some three
and a half years later.
"Lingering for three and a half years" is NOT
withdrawing immediately. Not by any standard
known to man.
Show me the poll that says the American people favor an immediate
withdrawal. Of course you can't, which is why you're playing word
games.
LOL! ..."an immediate withdrawal"..."show me", you challenge. Jeez...the
majority of Americans hired Dems to set a time-table for a phased
withdrawal. Polls then, and now, have never suggested the majority wanted
them to pull out quickly, but in a timely manner. It's an old tactic to
infer that left wingers have been wanting an immediate pullout, when the
majority have never said that. You're taking an extreme tiny element of
the Left, and its stated goals, and magnifying it to suggest that is what
the rest of the Left wanted. Cindy Sheehan, BTW, doesn't represent the
whole of the Left, kid, and she is very similiar to Tom Hayden and Abbie
Hoffman were in th 60s antiwar movement. It is common for the right wing
and the mainstream media to focus on the extreme to discredit a general
antiwar movement, by the majority, who sanely want this horrendous killing
field to come to an end SOON, not immediately. And that "soon" is a phased
withdrawal that shouldn't take until goddamned 2013 to do, for christ's
sake, as recently promoted. It can be easily accomplished in one year,
with no residual support troops left behind to provide a flimsy excuse for
renewed involvement. "Gee, looky, looky, our poor troops have come under
heavy fire, we need to send in reinforcements..." ***** that.
Doc :))~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
07 Oct 2007 12:59:50 AM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 8:44 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191723401.769011.12700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 4:23 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Show me the polls that report a majority of
Americans want an immediate withdrawal of
our troops from Iraq.
One. More. Time.
The war started three and a half years ago. The
time for an "Immediate" withdrawal has long
since come and gone. The best we could manage
at this point would be to withdraw some three
and a half years later.
"Lingering for three and a half years" is NOT
withdrawing immediately. Not by any standard
known to man.
Show me the poll that says the American people favor an immediate
withdrawal. Of course you can't, which is why you're playing word
games.
LOL! ..."an immediate withdrawal"..."show me", you challenge. Jeez...the
majority of Americans hired Dems to set a time-table for a phased
withdrawal. Polls then, and now, have never suggested the majority wanted
them to pull out quickly, but in a timely manner.
Tell that to your friend JTEM.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
07 Oct 2007 02:57:10 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191736790.983459.224460@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 8:44 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191723401.769011.12700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 4:23 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Show me the polls that report a majority of
Americans want an immediate withdrawal of
our troops from Iraq.
One. More. Time.
The war started three and a half years ago. The
time for an "Immediate" withdrawal has long
since come and gone. The best we could manage
at this point would be to withdraw some three
and a half years later.
"Lingering for three and a half years" is NOT
withdrawing immediately. Not by any standard
known to man.
Show me the poll that says the American people favor an immediate
withdrawal. Of course you can't, which is why you're playing word
games.
LOL! ..."an immediate withdrawal"..."show me", you challenge.
Jeez...the
majority of Americans hired Dems to set a time-table for a phased
withdrawal. Polls then, and now, have never suggested the majority
wanted
them to pull out quickly, but in a timely manner.
Tell that to your friend JTEM.
\
Johnny's no friend of mine, and neither are you. Your insistence on
criticizing the Left by using a small minority's extreme positions on any
issue, is as old and tiring a tactic of the politically biased and
intellectually myopic as the eons-old hills, kid.
You've consistently misrepresented the majority of Americans desire to end
the Iraq war with a political time-table, many of which are conservative,
and have ignored their "mandate" to Dems they elected last November to
carry out the task. It is not JTEM's position that is the real issue here.
It is, and has been, your's. You can't accept that the majority of
Americans want out of this Iraq blood toilet, and you keep swinging away
at left extremists who advocate an "immediate withdrawal." The word among
those who favor this war to end, is not "immediate" it is a "timely
orderly withdrawal plan."
So, what does it matter that *some* want it to end rather suddenly, while
the majority have made it clear they don't accept that desire?
It is a moot point. Radicals to the Left will not get their immediate
withdrawal, nor will radicals on the Right get an extended war -- a
horrible political liability -- lingering for the next six years.
Neither will get what they desire, and ultimately, as it is so often true
in American political history, moderates will strike a middle ground
course to resolve the issue.
That middle-ground is exactly what most anti-war Americans wanted a year
ago when they put Dems into a majority, and they've not yet seen realized.
In the grayness of our moment politically, Americans are tearing away at
each other with their objectives to both end the war and perpetuate the
war. You, of course, wish to prolong it, by your support of Gen. Patreous,
or anyone else you can find to keep it going until you feel personally
satisfied your nationalistic pride will be preserved.
As you continue to advocate the continuation of the war, even your
conservative friends are saying that a military resolution will not likely
come, but that only a political one will work.
As your conservative buddies leave you in droves, Congress is currently
deadlocked by the numbers game to end this war. It will not last much
longer. Election year beckons, kid. And all this hot air from you and your
ilk will cool...have a nice day.
Doc :))~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 09:56:05 PM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 10:16 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:23 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Show me the polls that report a majority of
Americans want an immediate withdrawal of
our troops from Iraq.
One. More. Time.
The war started three and a half years ago. The
time for an "Immediate" withdrawal has long
since come and gone. The best we could manage
at this point would be to withdraw some three
and a half years later.
"Lingering for three and a half years" is NOT
withdrawing immediately. Not by any standard
known to man.
Show me the poll that says the American people favor an immediate
withdrawal. Of course you can't, which is why you're playing word
games.
Hey Stevie, Noam Chomsky's a Pol Pot supporter...lol
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 10:45:24 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191725765.268815.25450@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 10:16 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 4:23 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Show me the polls that report a majority of
Americans want an immediate withdrawal of
our troops from Iraq.
One. More. Time.
The war started three and a half years ago. The
time for an "Immediate" withdrawal has long
since come and gone. The best we could manage
at this point would be to withdraw some three
and a half years later.
"Lingering for three and a half years" is NOT
withdrawing immediately. Not by any standard
known to man.
Show me the poll that says the American people favor an immediate
withdrawal. Of course you can't, which is why you're playing word
games.
Hey Stevie, Noam Chomsky's a Pol Pot supporter...lol
Not very funny, eric. :(~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kmiller" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 02:24:17 AM |
|
|
After having 'profiled' all the regulars here [on this newsgroup[ for
nearly 4 yrs now :
I (personally) don't think Steven is the one you should be "singling
out" as your Nemisis here. - at least not while he is being HIMSELF.
The one POSTER here lately, that has shown major consitancy (in all
his posts) - is the person that [currently] goes by the name of
'Docrodile' and 'Mr Wally HooRoo' !!!
Maybe I am not familiar enough here to relate these 'current' posts
back to someone like 'Steven' ;
But I am current enough here, to recognize "TRUE FAKEs" - when I see
them !!!
Just My Thoughts.
;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
03 Oct 2007 08:58:32 PM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 9:55 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:37 am, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:44 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone knows this loser lies constantly. The question is, does he
know why he lies?
Do you have an example? Just one? Of course not, or you'd post
something substantive. Instead, all you've got are you usual
meaningless platitudes. How weak.
Noam Chomsky a Pol Pot suppoter,
That's it? That's the first thing that popped into your mind? I'm
surprised. I actually thought you'd come up with something more
important than my accurate criticism of Noam Chomsky.
In 1977, Noam Chomsky was the co-author an article that appeared in
Nation magazine. In the face of multiple news sources that were
starting to report the Khmer Rouge genocide, Chomsky and his co-author
went out of their way to defend Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Click the link
below, eric, and read Chomsky's own words:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm
and many, many more.
Yet your misplaced defense of Chomsky is right up there at the top of
the list. Very interesting.
Of course, a patholigical liar like you will always deny, deny, deny.
No, that would be you, eric.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
04 Oct 2007 04:06:20 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
In 1977, Noam Chomsky was the co-author an article that
appeared in Nation magazine. In the face of multiple
news sources that were starting to report the Khmer
Rouge genocide, Chomsky and his co-author went out of
their way to defend Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
No they didn't. The thrust of the story isn't that Pol
Pot is great, it's that the U.S. media sucks.
A real paraphrasing of his views would be, "I'm skeptical
when it comes to these reports, here's why...."
He names other reports that contradicted evidence, he
mentioned information lacking in the reports and he
identified other explanations for the evidence.
Again, the focus was the reporting.
Trying reading for comprehension.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
04 Oct 2007 09:58:43 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 2:06 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
In 1977, Noam Chomsky was the co-author an article that
appeared in Nation magazine. In the face of multiple
news sources that were starting to report the Khmer
Rouge genocide, Chomsky and his co-author went out of
their way to defend Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
No they didn't. The thrust of the story isn't that Pol
Pot is great, it's that the U.S. media sucks.
What the media reported were refugee accounts of the atrocities being
committed by the Khmer Rouge, and Chomsky did not want to believe
those reports. So he found a few examples of bad reporting and made
that his case. He did not deny there were *some* atrocities, and
compared those to the killing of collaborators after the liberation of
France in 1945. In other words, he was favorably comparing Pol Pot's
regime to liberated France.
A real paraphrasing of his views would be, "I'm skeptical
when it comes to these reports, here's why...."
Yes, because lefties of that era so desperately wanted to believe that
Communism was the answer to all of mankind's problems.
He names other reports that contradicted evidence, he
mentioned information lacking in the reports and he
identified other explanations for the evidence.
It turns out it was Chomsky who was wrong. And all the good little
leftists of that era just blindly and gleefully accepted Chomsky's
inaccurate interpretation of those reports -- and in some cases (such
as eric, and others) it goes on to this day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
05 Oct 2007 07:01:42 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
What the media reported were refugee accounts
of the atrocities being committed by the Khmer
Rouge, and Chomsky did not want to believe
those reports. So he found a few examples of
bad reporting
Please. You're being dishonest. He said he was
skeptical of the reports, and gave the reasons
why he was skeptical.
Are you honestly trying to pretend there was
only "a few examples" of bad reporting?
Seriously?
I could write for the next few months about all
the bad reporting surrounding Bush, and why the
slightest tinge of skepticism would have lead
you (and everybody else) to the conclusion that
Bush lied his way into war.
I guess that reading comprehension isn't your
problem after all. Your problem is that you're
reading what you wrote between the lines, and
you're too stupid to notice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
05 Oct 2007 09:07:29 PM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 5:01 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
What the media reported were refugee accounts
of the atrocities being committed by the Khmer
Rouge, and Chomsky did not want to believe
those reports. So he found a few examples of
bad reporting
Please. You're being dishonest. He said he was
skeptical of the reports, and gave the reasons
why he was skeptical.
Are you honestly trying to pretend there was
only "a few examples" of bad reporting?
Seriously?
It turns out the reporting was correct, and Chomsky's defense of Pol
Pot was wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 06:25:52 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
It turns out the reporting was correct,
So you fault him for something that could have
only been known through hindsight?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 09:21:00 PM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 4:25 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
It turns out the reporting was correct,
So you fault him for something that could have
only been known through hindsight?
Many people believed the refugees who were reporting the Pol Pot
genocide, which was in full progress by 1977. Chomsky did not deny
that there were some deaths, but compared the Khmer Rouge's tactics to
the killings of collaborators in liberated France in 1945. Chomsky did
not want to believe that Pol Pot was a bad man, so he discounted the
refugee reports in an attempt to put Pol Pot's regime in a favorable
light. And, of course, it worked on all the good little leftists of
that era. So much so that many of them are still defending the kook
(Chomsky) to this day.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 04:23:42 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191463112.303456.50740@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:55 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:37 am, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:44 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone knows this loser lies constantly. The question is, does
he
know why he lies?
Do you have an example? Just one? Of course not, or you'd post
something substantive. Instead, all you've got are you usual
meaningless platitudes. How weak.
Noam Chomsky a Pol Pot suppoter,
That's it? That's the first thing that popped into your mind? I'm
surprised. I actually thought you'd come up with something more
important than my accurate criticism of Noam Chomsky.
In 1977, Noam Chomsky was the co-author an article that appeared in
Nation magazine. In the face of multiple news sources that were
starting to report the Khmer Rouge genocide, Chomsky and his co-author
went out of their way to defend Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Click the link
below, eric, and read Chomsky's own words:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm
and many, many more.
Yet your misplaced defense of Chomsky is right up there at the top of
the list. Very interesting.
Of course, a patholigical liar like you will always deny, deny, deny.
No, that would be you, eric.
It's always the same thing with you, Stevie boy. Ignoring the carnage and
mass suffering duplicitous, self-serving US foreign policy, unnecessary
and/or poorly planned wars, nationalistic arrogance, and
commercial/ideological global hegemony have done to millions of innocent
folks. By focusing on the theoretical musings of one prominent left-winger
on the roots and scales of the Khmer Rouges' dictatorship, nationalists
like you hope to ignore the many humanly costly errors the US
government/corporate boys have perpetrated on large numbers of
innocents -- not to mention animal life, as well.
It's all Alice in Wonderland for America's apologists as you and they
misdirect attention away from the greed, lying, mass murder and torture,
etc., the USA has caused over the decades to Third World nations -- and it
doesn't stop there. Daily, the government and corporate boys collude to
drive our constitutional liberties into the toilet, while right-wing butt
boils like you cheerlead the virtues of some airy ideology of christian
apolocalyptia mixed with a jack-booted fascism.
Here, read this, ADD sufferer --
"Genocide": The United States and Pol Pot
Pol Pot was obviously a major mass murderer, but it's not clear that Pol
Pot killed very many more people -- or even more people -- than the United
States killed in Cambodia in the first half of the 1970s. We only talk
about "genocide" when other people do the killing. [The U.S. bombed and
invaded Cambodia beginning in 1969, and supported anti-Parliamentary
right-wing forces in a civil war there which lasted until 1975; Pol Pot
ruled the country between 1975 and '78.]
So there's a lot of uncertainty about just what the scale was of the Pol
Pot massacre, but the best scholarly work in existence today estimates the
deaths in Cambodia from all causes during the Pol Pot period in the
hundreds of thousands, maybe as much as a million.60 Well, just take a
look at the killing in Cambodia that happened in the first half of the
decade from 1970 to 1975 -- which is the period that we're responsible
for: it was also in the hundreds of thousands.61
Furthermore, if you really want to be serious about it -- let's say a
million people died in the Pol Pot years, let's take a higher number --
it's worth bearing in mind that when the United States stopped its attacks
on inner Cambodia in 1975, American and other Western officials predicted
that in the
[93]
aftermath, about a million more Cambodians would die just from the effects
of the American war.62 At the time that the United States withdrew from
Cambodia, people were dying from starvation in the city of Phnom Penh
alone -- forget the rest of the country -- at the rate of 100,000 a
year.63 The last U.S. A.I.D. [Agency for International Development]
mission in Cambodia predicted that there would have to be two years of
slave labor and starvation before the country could even begin to get
moving again.64 So while the number of deaths you should attribute to the
United States during the Pol Pot period isn't a simple calculation to
make, obviously it's a lot -- when you wipe out a country's agricultural
system and drive a million people out of their homes and into a city as
refugees, yeah, a lot of people are going to die. And the responsibility
for their deaths is not with the regime that took over afterwards, it's
with the people who made it that way.
And in fact, there's an even more subtle point to be made -- but not an
insignificant one. That is: why did Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge carry out
their massacre in the first place? Well, there's pretty good evidence that
the Khmer Rouge forces took power primarily because they were the only
ones who were tough enough bastards to survive the U.S. attacks. And given
the destructive psychological effects of the American bombings on the
peasant population there, some sort of violent outpouring was fairly
predictable -- and there was a big element of just plain peasant revenge
in what happened.65 So the U.S. bombings hit a real peak of ferocity in
around 1973, and that's the same period in which the Pol Pot group started
gaining power. The American bombardment was certainly a significant
factor, possibly the critical factor, in building up peasant support for
the Khmer Rouge in the first place; before that, they had been a pretty
marginal element. Okay, if we were honest about the term "genocide," we
would divide up the deaths in the Pol Pot period into a major part which
is our responsibility, which is the responsibility of the United States.
http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/lem02/chomsky1.html
Furthermore, kid, you're unable to see the forest for the trees and your
habitual myopism, I'm sure, has served your and your neoconic buddies
well. But, sooner or later, this evil empire of the USA will fall,
materially. It is already in the toilet morally.
And you're just one of the big, ol' fat stinky turds swirling in it,
waiting for the final flush.
Doc :))~
'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 09:23:07 PM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 2:23 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191463112.303456.50740@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:55 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:37 am, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:44 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone knows this loser lies constantly. The question is, does
he
know why he lies?
Do you have an example? Just one? Of course not, or you'd post
something substantive. Instead, all you've got are you usual
meaningless platitudes. How weak.
Noam Chomsky a Pol Pot suppoter,
That's it? That's the first thing that popped into your mind? I'm
surprised. I actually thought you'd come up with something more
important than my accurate criticism of Noam Chomsky.
In 1977, Noam Chomsky was the co-author an article that appeared in
Nation magazine. In the face of multiple news sources that were
starting to report the Khmer Rouge genocide, Chomsky and his co-author
went out of their way to defend Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Click the link
below, eric, and read Chomsky's own words:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm
and many, many more.
Yet your misplaced defense of Chomsky is right up there at the top of
the list. Very interesting.
Of course, a patholigical liar like you will always deny, deny, deny.
No, that would be you, eric.
It's always the same thing with you, Stevie boy. Ignoring the carnage and
mass suffering duplicitous, self-serving US foreign policy, unnecessary
and/or poorly planned wars, nationalistic arrogance, and
commercial/ideological global hegemony have done to millions of innocent
folks. By focusing on the theoretical musings of one prominent left-winger
on the roots and scales of the Khmer Rouges' dictatorship,
I didn't bring Chomsky into the discussion, Doc. Someone else did
that. I merely responded.
<snip, remainder unread>
I see you're well rested and back in long form again. Just in case it
isn't clear yet, I have no interest in reading *any* of your long-
winded posts, Doc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
06 Oct 2007 10:33:30 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191723787.053191.236250@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 2:23 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191463112.303456.50740@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:55 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:37 am, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:44 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone knows this loser lies constantly. The question is,
does
he
know why he lies?
Do you have an example? Just one? Of course not, or you'd post
something substantive. Instead, all you've got are you usual
meaningless platitudes. How weak.
Noam Chomsky a Pol Pot suppoter,
That's it? That's the first thing that popped into your mind? I'm
surprised. I actually thought you'd come up with something more
important than my accurate criticism of Noam Chomsky.
In 1977, Noam Chomsky was the co-author an article that appeared in
Nation magazine. In the face of multiple news sources that were
starting to report the Khmer Rouge genocide, Chomsky and his
co-author
went out of their way to defend Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Click the link
below, eric, and read Chomsky's own words:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm
and many, many more.
Yet your misplaced defense of Chomsky is right up there at the top of
the list. Very interesting.
Of course, a patholigical liar like you will always deny, deny,
deny.
No, that would be you, eric.
It's always the same thing with you, Stevie boy. Ignoring the carnage
and
mass suffering duplicitous, self-serving US foreign policy, unnecessary
and/or poorly planned wars, nationalistic arrogance, and
commercial/ideological global hegemony have done to millions of
innocent
folks. By focusing on the theoretical musings of one prominent
left-winger
on the roots and scales of the Khmer Rouges' dictatorship,
I didn't bring Chomsky into the discussion, Doc. Someone else did
that. I merely responded.
<snip, remainder unread>
I see you're well rested and back in long form again. Just in case it
isn't clear yet, I have no interest in reading *any* of your long-
winded posts, Doc.
I don't care who "brought" the subject in. You're having a silly field day
with Chomsky's underestimation of the the damage the Khmer Rouge regime
did for several years. To say that he liked or agreed with the politics of
Pol Pot, or to even SUGGEST it, is a total fabrication, Stevie. If you
want to take smirking swipes at left wingers, please try to be more
accurate in your denunciation of them. Yes, left wingers make
misjudgements, wrong assessments of ongoing siutations just like you right
wingers do. To call Chomsky a 'kook' while you've sat idly by and
supported the extreme right wing fundamentalists who supported these
inept, lying, corrupted, fanatical Bushites and Cheney-zombies, and their
rotten little futile war in Iraq, makes you the continuing 'beautiful
piece of work' you're so infamously known for here.
Chomsky is a highly intelligent, well educated, extremely experienced
political and social analyst who has made some mistakes. But his
essential assessment, over 6 years ago, of the Bush-Cheney regime was
right on the money, honey.
And he continues to be a keenly perceptive observer of the global
corporate-political-military collusion -- a collusion, BTW, that folks
like you, on the right, are being victimized by, misled into an emerging
global police state, and abused with copious lies and manipulations for
corporate greed. All this at the expense of the rights, health, and
general well being of the middle class and the poor. And they've hurt our
natural environment, to boot.
If you even had 1/10th of the wit, insight, intelligence, and knowledge of
Chomsky, you'd understand what a dupe you are , and have been for years,
at the hands of power brokers who have no interest in constitutional
liberties, but do have an extraordinary fascination with their egos and
fascistic control of the populace.
It's too bad you can't read much, Stevie, of my posts, yet spend enormous
time reading what you like to hear, what you makes you feel righteous and
comfortable in your delusions. But, I don't write them just for you to
read, kid.
Chomsky has never supported tyrannies in his life, and that is why he
doesn't support the corporate-government collusion you often get into bed
with here, defending it. On the other hand, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and
Cheney have supported dictators when they served their purposes for
commercial and/or strategic advantages - and then dissed them when they no
longer were 'useful'.
You poor sap. They should've never hung Saddam. They should've shipped him
to your house, and you two could've lived happily ever after.
Doc :))~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
07 Oct 2007 12:58:44 AM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 8:33 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191723787.053191.236250@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 2:23 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191463112.303456.50740@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:55 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:37 am, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:44 am, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone knows this loser lies constantly. The question is,
does
he
know why he lies?
Do you have an example? Just one? Of course not, or you'd post
something substantive. Instead, all you've got are you usual
meaningless platitudes. How weak.
Noam Chomsky a Pol Pot suppoter,
That's it? That's the first thing that popped into your mind? I'm
surprised. I actually thought you'd come up with something more
important than my accurate criticism of Noam Chomsky.
| | | | | |
