Everyone knows this loser lies constantly. The question is, does he
know why he lies?
.
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
07 Oct 2007 02:35:11 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191736724.398376.313180@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
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.
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.
I don't care that you don't care.
You're having a silly field day with Chomsky's underestimation of
the the damage the Khmer Rouge regime did for several years.
Yes, he favorably compared that government to liberated France of 1945.
Should we take a critical look at all the right-wing idealogues,
especially Michele Malkin, and pick, pick, pick away at their wrong
assessments, biasedness, propaganda, et al?? Hmmm?
When a media ideologue is wrong, left or right, thousands or millions
don't suffer or die. But when an ideologue is in a position of political
power, and makes a wrong assumption, or is biased, or is simply a rather
irrational thinker, many often get hurt and get killed.
As in the case of those leaders you supported for several years, in their
acceptance of the incredibly wrong assessment of WMD in Iraq threatening
the world's security, many thousands have lost their lives and been
disabled to protect the world from a non-existent threat.
Perhaps, Stevie, some distant day (and I will not hold my breath), you'll
see that those who hold power and make such terribly erroneous assessments
and decisions, are the ones you should be considering as the evil on the
planet, the real threat.
Pouring over the complexities of media intellectuals' detailed analyses of
historical debacles may entertain you, and give you a feeling of
disassociation from your inability to separate lies from truth, rational
from irrationality as it is ongoing in the heat of burning issues at that
moment -- but, it does nothing to bring back the unnecessary tragically
lost lives, shattered lives, of those who were the power brokers' victims.
Have a nice day.
Doc :))~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
07 Oct 2007 11:33:13 AM |
|
|
On Oct 7, 12:35 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191736724.398376.313180@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 8:33 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
You're having a silly field day with Chomsky's underestimation of
the the damage the Khmer Rouge regime did for several years.
Yes, he favorably compared that government to liberated France of 1945.
Should we take a critical look at all the right-wing idealogues,
especially Michele Malkin, and pick, pick, pick away at their wrong
assessments, biasedness, propaganda, et al?? Hmmm?
What's stopping you? Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Have I asked you to
read Malkin? Have I asked you to read *any* right-wing ideologue? What
you seem to have missed in all this was eric's belief that I was
unaware of Chomsky, and his suggestion that I should read Chomsky. The
only reason I *ever* mentioned Chomsky was to let eric know that I
have absolutely no desire (nor need) to read his ultra-extreme leftist
point of view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
09 Oct 2007 04:09:55 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191774793.002355.283180@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 12:35 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191736724.398376.313180@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 8:33 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
You're having a silly field day with Chomsky's underestimation of
the the damage the Khmer Rouge regime did for several years.
Yes, he favorably compared that government to liberated France of
1945.
Should we take a critical look at all the right-wing idealogues,
especially Michele Malkin, and pick, pick, pick away at their wrong
assessments, biasedness, propaganda, et al?? Hmmm?
What's stopping you? Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Have I asked you to
read Malkin? Have I asked you to read *any* right-wing ideologue? What
you seem to have missed in all this was eric's belief that I was
unaware of Chomsky, and his suggestion that I should read Chomsky. The
only reason I *ever* mentioned Chomsky was to let eric know that I
have absolutely no desire (nor need) to read his ultra-extreme leftist
point of view.
LOL! What stops me is a realization that what some pseuodo or
semi-intelluctual pisshead thinks about our collective reality is of no
daily consequence to my life, your's, or anyone else's. Just opinions,
opinions, and more hot air. Now, if you want the hot air to burn your *****,
then support the Bushs and Cheneys in our lives -- fucked-up folks who
don't just blow, but get lotsa innocent people blowed up, in lil' bloody
pieces. You'll have so many less problems in life by ignoring people whose
views you are biased toward, and have no viable effect on your daily
existence. That way, you'll be perfectly fine in your cocoon. Why you
bothered to crawl outta' of it again, and diss an ideologue you haven't
much knowledge of is indicative of a man driven by the intolerance of his
extremist views. So, wallow in your extremism, junior, and let Chomsky
wallow in his. It makes no difference to the reality we all have to
wrestle with every damned day --- but maybe you haven't had enough of that
hard stuff to wrestle with yet.
Meanwhile, egotistical political leaders' insane idealogies and wholesale
commercial greediness get lotsa people into early graves, deteriorate our
general environmental and social health, and rob the public of their tax
money that could be helping them -- not filling up elitists' bank coffers
for another Austin-Healey purchase.
Doc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
09 Oct 2007 11:56:42 AM |
|
|
On Oct 9, 2:09 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
You'll have so many less problems in life by ignoring people whose
views you are biased toward, and have no viable effect on your daily
existence. That way, you'll be perfectly fine in your cocoon. Why you
bothered to crawl outta' of it again, and diss an ideologue you haven't
much knowledge of
Because eric asked me to read the kook's blatherings, that's why.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
09 Oct 2007 01:39:29 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949002.986091.42060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 2:09 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
You'll have so many less problems in life by ignoring people whose
views you are biased toward, and have no viable effect on your daily
existence. That way, you'll be perfectly fine in your cocoon. Why you
bothered to crawl outta' of it again, and diss an ideologue you haven't
much knowledge of
Because eric asked me to read the kook's blatherings, that's why.
Please explain this svengali effect eric has on you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
09 Oct 2007 02:48:41 PM |
|
|
On Oct 9, 11:39 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949002.986091.42060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 2:09 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
You'll have so many less problems in life by ignoring people whose
views you are biased toward, and have no viable effect on your daily
existence. That way, you'll be perfectly fine in your cocoon. Why you
bothered to crawl outta' of it again, and diss an ideologue you haven't
much knowledge of
Because eric asked me to read the kook's blatherings, that's why.
Please explain this svengali effect eric has on you.
All I did was respond to his post, which was addressed to me. But
since you brought it up, why don't you explain this svengali effect I
have on you, which causes you to respond to *all* of my posts, even
those *not* addressed to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
09 Oct 2007 02:53:26 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191959321.008363.153010@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 11:39 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949002.986091.42060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 2:09 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
You'll have so many less problems in life by ignoring people whose
views you are biased toward, and have no viable effect on your daily
existence. That way, you'll be perfectly fine in your cocoon. Why
you
bothered to crawl outta' of it again, and diss an ideologue you
haven't
much knowledge of
Because eric asked me to read the kook's blatherings, that's why.
Please explain this svengali effect eric has on you.
All I did was respond to his post, which was addressed to me. But
since you brought it up, why don't you explain this svengali effect I
have on you, which causes you to respond to *all* of my posts, even
those *not* addressed to you.
No, Stevie, you've got it all wrong. It's just a part of the freedoms I
enjoy you patriotic grunts are fighting for in Iraq.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
10 Oct 2007 05:13:54 AM |
|
|
On 9 Okt, 21:48, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:39 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949002.986091.42060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 2:09 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
You'll have so many less problems in life by ignoring people whose
views you are biased toward, and have no viable effect on your daily
existence. That way, you'll be perfectly fine in your cocoon. Why you
bothered to crawl outta' of it again, and diss an ideologue you haven't
much knowledge of
Because eric asked me to read the kook's blatherings, that's why.
Please explain this svengali effect eric has on you.
All I did was respond to his post, which was addressed to me. But
since you brought it up, why don't you explain this svengali effect I
have on you, which causes you to respond to *all* of my posts, even
those *not* addressed to you.
Oh he'll stop that douglas. After reading the same old illogical crap
outa you 150 times a day, day in day out, it gets tiresom. That's why
nobody actually gets into a conversion with you, (except Doc who talks
rings around you every time I might add). It's just throw in a
comment, mostly without even thinking, and watch you argue against it.
It's actually very entertaining. Your communication skills seem to be
very limited. You can communicate to a level that is the same every
time and then the other person goes over to the next but you remain
where you are. You just can't get over that level. Then people have
switched over to 'wind-up' mode and you can never see it. You sit
there saying the same thing over and over and over again till, I
imagine, you're blue in the face but you never actually see what's
happening. As I said, it's very entertaining for the rest of us to
watch/read.
You're just not a particularly well educated chap are you douglas?
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
10 Oct 2007 11:01:02 AM |
|
|
On Oct 10, 3:13 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Okt, 21:48, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:39 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191949002.986091.42060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 2:09 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
You'll have so many less problems in life by ignoring people whose
views you are biased toward, and have no viable effect on your daily
existence. That way, you'll be perfectly fine in your cocoon. Why you
bothered to crawl outta' of it again, and diss an ideologue you haven't
much knowledge of
Because eric asked me to read the kook's blatherings, that's why.
Please explain this svengali effect eric has on you.
All I did was respond to his post, which was addressed to me. But
since you brought it up, why don't you explain this svengali effect I
have on you, which causes you to respond to *all* of my posts, even
those *not* addressed to you.
Oh he'll stop that douglas. After reading the same old illogical crap
outa you 150 times a day, day in day out, it gets tiresom. That's why
nobody actually gets into a conversion with you, (except Doc who talks
rings around you every time I might add). It's just throw in a
comment, mostly without even thinking, and watch you argue against it.
Mostly without even thinking about it? You mean, for example, your
comment that Bulgaria did not have millions of tourists during the
Communist era? I still haven't seen you acknowledge that. Or how about
the time you asked me for some proof that the Islamic Republic of
Sudan was conducting a genocide on Christians (and others) in southern
Sudan?
It's actually very entertaining. Your communication skills seem to be
very limited. You can communicate to a level that is the same every
time and then the other person goes over to the next but you remain
where you are.
You mean they throw in their own opinion, and I disagree with it? What
do you expect me to do? Just automatically agree with opinions that
are wrong? Sometimes just plain factually incorrect? I post cites here
all the time that show how wrong you and others are on a routine
basis.
You just can't get over that level. Then people have
switched over to 'wind-up' mode and you can never see it. You sit
there saying the same thing over and over and over again
If I say the same thing over and over again it's because it's the
truth -- and you and others here lack the ability to show otherwise.
till, I imagine, you're blue in the face but you never actually see
what's happening. As I said, it's very entertaining for the rest of
us to watch/read.
I know the feeling. You and others here entertain me on a regular
basis.
You're just not a particularly well educated chap are you douglas?
Those are my thoughts of you, precisely.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
11 Oct 2007 03:04:11 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Mostly without even thinking about it? You mean, for
example, your comment that Bulgaria did not have
millions of tourists during the Communist era?
Oh, sure, most of the people here -- or, should I say,
most of the sock puppets here? -- are bat ***** crazy,
and are seriously in need of a clue. They reply via a
jerking knee, without so much as the threat of a
thought in sight. But....
You're no better. You defend Bush's lies to get us into
a war, for example, by quoting people that Bush lied to.
"See? They believed Bush! There MUST have been
something to it!"
No. No there wasn't. And the entire frigging English
speaking world knows that... except you.
Which is really pretty sad. I mean, as easy as it would
be to take the high-road in comparison to this crowd,
you STILL can't manage it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is Stevie a Patholigical Liar? |
12 Oct 2007 01:09:10 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 1:04 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Mostly without even thinking about it? You mean, for
example, your comment that Bulgaria did not have
millions of tourists during the Communist era?
Oh, sure, most of the people here -- or, should I say,
most of the sock puppets here? -- are bat ***** crazy,
and are seriously in need of a clue. They reply via a
jerking knee, without so much as the threat of a
thought in sight. But....
You're no better. You defend Bush's lies to get us into
a war, for example, by quoting people that Bush lied to.
First, the President said this: "There is no more clear example of
this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the
safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of
all the rest of us."
Then the President's Justice Department said this: "Al-Qaeda reached
an
understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work
against that government and that on particular projects, specifically
including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with
the government of Iraq."
Later, the President's wife said this: "In the four years since the
inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his
missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda
members ..."
And while she was visiting Ohio, the President's Secretary of State
had this to say: "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there
matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue
state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or
our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Then the President's National Security Advisor made this comment:
"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to
act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community
has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that
arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."
And finally, the President's Secretary of Defense said this: "So we
are there to protect your children and grandchildren from one of the
most grievous types of threats that we'll ever see in the future that
is weapons of mass destruction."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
Of course you think the President (quoted above) was lying, right? And
you think it was his lies that caused the others to say the things
they said (as quoted above)?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
