🚀 go-pugleaf

Reprimand Is Sentence For Officer at Abu Ghraib



By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page A03

Army Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, the only officer to face trial over
the Abu Ghraib detainee-abuse scandal, was issued a reprimand
yesterday by a military jury, a punishment that spares him all prison
time after he was convicted this week on one count of disobeying an
order.

The jury could have sentenced Jordan to as much as five years in
prison and ordered his dismissal from the Army. Instead, he received
one of the lightest punishments available. Jordan was convicted for
contacting other soldiers about the military's 2004 investigation into
the Abu Ghraib abuse after he was ordered not to discuss it with
anyone.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan leaves military court after being
found guilty Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2007, in Fort Meade, Md., of willfully
disobeying a superior commissioned officer. A military court on
Tuesday acquitted Jordan of failing to control lower-ranking soldiers
who humiliated and abused detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq
during the autumn of 2003. (AP Photo/Steve Ruark) (Steve Ruark - AP) 
Originally accused of abuse and failing to supervise soldiers who
committed abuse, Jordan was exonerated Tuesday on all charges related
to the abuse of detainees, clearing him in a case that lasted more
than three years.

Jordan had repeatedly asserted that he was not in charge of the
facility and not responsible for the interrogation tactics used there.
In an interview yesterday, Jordan said that he thinks the jury panel
"did the fairest thing they could" and that he feels as though a "huge
weight has been lifted" off of his shoulders.

"Today was a vindication for my family, myself, and all the
professional soldiers and civilians at Abu Ghraib that did an
outstanding duty in such an austere environment that was, in essence,
undermanned, under-resourced and under constant attack," Jordan said
in an interview yesterday. "For the first time since the spring of
2004, I have some idea of a clear future."

Jordan said he plans to stay in the Army as an active-duty officer
while he weighs his options. He said yesterday that he wants to
someday become a grade-school teacher. In an earlier interview, Jordan
said he felt that the Army used him as a scapegoat in an effort to
show that it had put at least one officer on trial for abuse, and he
echoed those sentiments yesterday.

"When they're playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, that's a fun game
until you're the donkey," Jordan said. "That's how I've felt these
last 3 1/2 years, that I was the donkey."

The final military trial related to the notorious abuse at Abu Ghraib
ended as a major victory for the defense team of Jordan, who at one
time faced a potential sentence of 16 1/2 years. The final sentence
was lighter than Jordan would have received under an administrative
punishment that an investigating officer recommended to commanders
late last year, which would have included a letter of reprimand and
dismissal from the Army. Prosecutors had long suggested that the case
be concluded as an administrative matter, but senior commanders
ignored that advice and pushed ahead with a public court-martial.

Jordan's punishment is lighter than the administrative punishment
received by Army Col. Thomas M. Pappas, who was the top officer at Abu
Ghraib and who admitted inappropriately approving the use of dogs in
interrogations. Pappas, who received immunity to testify in
courts-martial related to Abu Ghraib, received a reprimand and an
$8,000 fine.

A reprimand can be career-ending because it enters an officer's
permanent military file, meaning that Jordan probably would have had
trouble seeking a promotion to colonel, if he desired such a move.
Jordan and his attorneys said they plan to file a clemency petition to
Maj. Gen. Richard J. Rowe Jr., the commander of the Military District
of Washington. The jury's verdict needs to be confirmed by Rowe, who
can only lessen the punishment.

Different sets of prosecutors over the past three years have
recommended not proceeding with a court-martial for Jordan, and it was
evident during the weeklong trial why the lawyers had been hesitant to
bring the case to court. Jordan did not appear in any of the
photographs of abuse that surfaced in 2004, and no witnesses in the
trial said that Jordan ordered the abuse, specifically knew about it
or commanded the soldiers who were involved in it. The one charge that
stuck was Jordan's violation of an order from Maj. Gen. George Fay not
to discuss the abuse investigation, something Jordan has maintained he
did by mistake.

Brig. Gen. Louis Weber, the president of the jury, said his impression
from the trial was that Jordan is "a superb leader and officer."
Referring to the abuse-related charges, he added: "From my
perspective, the evidence that was presented didn't support the
allegations."

Capt. Samuel Spitzberg, a member of Jordan's defense team, said Army
commanders had expressed a desire to have a public airing of the Abu
Ghraib charges, but he noted that the case against Jordan aired little
about the prison or the abuse.

"For us it was never about Abu Ghraib; for us, it was about Lieutenant
Colonel Jordan," Spitzberg said. "We are pleased with the result
overall. It really is a vindication of his position throughout."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082900391.html?hpid=sec-nation



-- 

2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 rights make a left. 

Alan Smithee wrote:
> Fleischer Ignorant Of The Name Of Wounded Iraq Vet Featured In His TV
> Ad
> 
> On MSNBC�s Hardball tonight, former White House press secretary Ari
> Fleischer, who is leading a White House front group to defend Bush�s
> escalation, was unable to name the wounded Iraq veteran featured in
> his organization�s pro-war ad. �I don�t have his name in front of me,�
> said Fleischer when asked by host Mike Barnicle if he knew the
> soldier�s name.

I feel his pain.  There have been like 100 James's killed, and about 200 
Paul's and so on with all of the generic Catholic names.

Perhaps it would be easier for him to simply refer to the dead US 
soldiers by number, in the order in which they died.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:47:48 GMT, Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net>
wrote:

>Alan Smithee wrote:
>> Fleischer Ignorant Of The Name Of Wounded Iraq Vet Featured In His TV
>> Ad
>> 
>> On MSNBC�s Hardball tonight, former White House press secretary Ari
>> Fleischer, who is leading a White House front group to defend Bush�s
>> escalation, was unable to name the wounded Iraq veteran featured in
>> his organization�s pro-war ad. �I don�t have his name in front of me,�
>> said Fleischer when asked by host Mike Barnicle if he knew the
>> soldier�s name.
>
>I feel his pain.  There have been like 100 James's killed, and about 200 
>Paul's and so on with all of the generic Catholic names.
>
>Perhaps it would be easier for him to simply refer to the dead US 
>soldiers by number, in the order in which they died.

More wishful thinking: 43

http://victoryshirt.com/catalog/images/bushpretzel.jpg

Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, an openly homosexual
member of the House, said Craig was a hypocrite on gay rights issues
but he didn't think the Republican senator should resign.

"This is the hypocrisy - it's to deny legal equality to gay people,
but then to engage in gay behavior," Frank said.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/29/ap4066361.html

What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
knees... :-)

"Irving C Saltzberg" <IrvingCSaltzberg@nospam.nul> wrote in message 
news:s6ddd3tat0tg8gi32359ftnbefocjc9vn6@4ax.com...
> What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
> closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
> mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
> lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
> knees... :-)

Hypocrisy is also stereotyping people and assuming if a few are guilty, then 
all members
of that class are guilty.

We all have a little hypocrisy in us. 

On Aug 30, 9:43 am, "Sandy Saltzturd" <uptod...@news.com> wrote:
> "Irving C Saltzberg" <IrvingCSaltzb...@nospam.nul> wrote in messagenews:s6ddd3tat0tg8gi32359ftnbefocjc9vn6@4ax.com...
>
> > What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
> > closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
> > mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
> > lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
> > knees... :-)
>
> Hypocrisy is also stereotyping people and assuming if a few are guilty, then
> all members
> of that class are guilty.
>
> We all have a little hypocrisy in us.

True, depending on your definition of hypocrisy, but I dare say that
not all are "hypocrites" in the traditional sense.

On Aug 30, 7:43 am, "Sandy Saltzturd" <uptod...@news.com> wrote:
> "Irving C Saltzberg" <IrvingCSaltzb...@nospam.nul> wrote in messagenews:s6ddd3tat0tg8gi32359ftnbefocjc9vn6@4ax.com...
>
> > What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
> > closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
> > mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
> > lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
> > knees... :-)
>
> Hypocrisy is also stereotyping people and assuming if a few are guilty, then
> all members
> of that class are guilty.
>
> We all have a little hypocrisy in us.

No, dumbfuck, that's called extrapolation or projection.  Now go look
up hypocrisy in the dictionary.

In article <1188518237.625841.103020@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
 neoconis_ignoramus <bellamacina@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Aug 30, 7:43 am, "Sandy Saltzturd" <uptod...@news.com> wrote:
> > "Irving C Saltzberg" <IrvingCSaltzb...@nospam.nul> wrote in 
> > messagenews:s6ddd3tat0tg8gi32359ftnbefocjc9vn6@4ax.com...
> >
> > > What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
> > > closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
> > > mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
> > > lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
> > > knees... :-)
> >
> > Hypocrisy is also stereotyping people and assuming if a few are guilty, 
> > then
> > all members
> > of that class are guilty.
> >
> > We all have a little hypocrisy in us.
> 
> No, dumbfuck, that's called extrapolation or projection.  Now go look
> up hypocrisy in the dictionary.

A more apt definition is prejudice, which encompasses extrapolation and 
projection in the process of pre-judgement.

Charge of hypocrisy is a leftist dogma. Given that they really don't 
stand for much and are inherently malleable and flighty, they can never 
be substantially accused of of this ultimate sin.

On Aug 30, 5:14 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> In article <1188518237.625841.103...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 7:43 am, "Sandy Saltzturd" <uptod...@news.com> wrote:
> > > "Irving C Saltzberg" <IrvingCSaltzb...@nospam.nul> wrote in
> > > messagenews:s6ddd3tat0tg8gi32359ftnbefocjc9vn6@4ax.com...
>
> > > > What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
> > > > closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
> > > > mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
> > > > lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
> > > > knees... :-)
>
> > > Hypocrisy is also stereotyping people and assuming if a few are guilty,
> > > then
> > > all members
> > > of that class are guilty.
>
> > > We all have a little hypocrisy in us.
>
> > No, dumbfuck, that's called extrapolation or projection.  Now go look
> > up hypocrisy in the dictionary.
>
> A more apt definition is prejudice, which encompasses extrapolation and
> projection in the process of pre-judgement.
>
> Charge of hypocrisy is a leftist dogma. Given that they really don't
> stand for much and are inherently malleable and flighty, they can never
> be substantially accused of of this ultimate sin.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's a leftist dogma cuz you nutball neocons can't seem to stop being
hypocrites.  Here's a little tip for ya:  stop being fucking
hypocrites, and we'll stop calling you hypocrites.

In article <1188521129.426701.274750@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
 neoconis_ignoramus <bellamacina@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Aug 30, 5:14 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > In article <1188518237.625841.103...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Aug 30, 7:43 am, "Sandy Saltzturd" <uptod...@news.com> wrote:
> > > > "Irving C Saltzberg" <IrvingCSaltzb...@nospam.nul> wrote in
> > > > messagenews:s6ddd3tat0tg8gi32359ftnbefocjc9vn6@4ax.com...
> >
> > > > > What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
> > > > > closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
> > > > > mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
> > > > > lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
> > > > > knees... :-)
> >
> > > > Hypocrisy is also stereotyping people and assuming if a few are guilty,
> > > > then
> > > > all members
> > > > of that class are guilty.
> >
> > > > We all have a little hypocrisy in us.
> >
> > > No, dumbfuck, that's called extrapolation or projection.  Now go look
> > > up hypocrisy in the dictionary.
> >
> > A more apt definition is prejudice, which encompasses extrapolation and
> > projection in the process of pre-judgement.
> >
> > Charge of hypocrisy is a leftist dogma. Given that they really don't
> > stand for much and are inherently malleable and flighty, they can never
> > be substantially accused of of this ultimate sin.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> It's a leftist dogma cuz you nutball neocons can't seem to stop being
> hypocrites.  Here's a little tip for ya:  stop being fucking
> hypocrites, and we'll stop calling you hypocrites.

I rest my case.

You might consider the actual effect of hypocrisy on mankind - inverse 
to the leftist hysteria over hypocrisy. Yawn.

On Aug 30, 6:07 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> In article <1188521129.426701.274...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 5:14 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > > In article <1188518237.625841.103...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 30, 7:43 am, "Sandy Saltzturd" <uptod...@news.com> wrote:
> > > > > "Irving C Saltzberg" <IrvingCSaltzb...@nospam.nul> wrote in
> > > > > messagenews:s6ddd3tat0tg8gi32359ftnbefocjc9vn6@4ax.com...
>
> > > > > > What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
> > > > > > closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
> > > > > > mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
> > > > > > lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
> > > > > > knees... :-)
>
> > > > > Hypocrisy is also stereotyping people and assuming if a few are guilty,
> > > > > then
> > > > > all members
> > > > > of that class are guilty.
>
> > > > > We all have a little hypocrisy in us.
>
> > > > No, dumbfuck, that's called extrapolation or projection.  Now go look
> > > > up hypocrisy in the dictionary.
>
> > > A more apt definition is prejudice, which encompasses extrapolation and
> > > projection in the process of pre-judgement.
>
> > > Charge of hypocrisy is a leftist dogma. Given that they really don't
> > > stand for much and are inherently malleable and flighty, they can never
> > > be substantially accused of of this ultimate sin.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It's a leftist dogma cuz you nutball neocons can't seem to stop being
> > hypocrites.  Here's a little tip for ya:  stop being fucking
> > hypocrites, and we'll stop calling you hypocrites.
>
> I rest my case.
>
> You might consider the actual effect of hypocrisy on mankind - inverse
> to the leftist hysteria over hypocrisy. Yawn.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yawn all you want.   You support a party of utter hypocrites.  Trying
to rationalize that away doesn't change that fact, nor does it change
the fact you're a little sniveler who'd support a party of hypocrites
over his supposed own standards.  Live with that, loser.

In article <1188522773.374520.70630@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
 neoconis_ignoramus <bellamacina@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Aug 30, 6:07 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > In article <1188521129.426701.274...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> >
> > You might consider the actual effect of hypocrisy on mankind - inverse
> > to the leftist hysteria over hypocrisy. Yawn.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> Yawn all you want.   You support a party of utter hypocrites.  Trying
> to rationalize that away doesn't change that fact, nor does it change
> the fact you're a little sniveler who'd support a party of hypocrites
> over his supposed own standards.  Live with that, loser.

Your focus on hypocrisy indicates a narcissistic view, because the only 
actual effect of hypocrisy is personal. It has zero effect on the 
direction of mankind.

And, converse you your concerns, you cannot in any way show the 
opposite. Quite the the shock, eh - your fervent moral code *means shit* 
in the grand scheme, go rent a church.

On Aug 30, 6:32 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> In article <1188522773.374520.70...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 6:07 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > > In article <1188521129.426701.274...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > You might consider the actual effect of hypocrisy on mankind - inverse
> > > to the leftist hysteria over hypocrisy. Yawn.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yawn all you want.   You support a party of utter hypocrites.  Trying
> > to rationalize that away doesn't change that fact, nor does it change
> > the fact you're a little sniveler who'd support a party of hypocrites
> > over his supposed own standards.  Live with that, loser.
>
> Your focus on hypocrisy indicates a narcissistic view, because the only
> actual effect of hypocrisy is personal. It has zero effect on the
> direction of mankind.
>
> And, converse you your concerns, you cannot in any way show the
> opposite. Quite the the shock, eh - your fervent moral code *means shit*
> in the grand scheme, go rent a church.

LOL look at the amateur psychologist / philosopher.  Based on your
"analysis", I suggest you stick to the day job.  That is, if you have
one.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:43:03 GMT, "Sandy Saltzturd"
<uptodate@news.com> wrote:

>
>"Irving C Saltzberg" <IrvingCSaltzberg@nospam.nul> wrote in message 
>news:s6ddd3tat0tg8gi32359ftnbefocjc9vn6@4ax.com...
>> What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
>> closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
>> mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
>> lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
>> knees... :-)
>
>Hypocrisy is also stereotyping people and assuming if a few are guilty, then 
>all members
>of that class are guilty.
>
>We all have a little hypocrisy in us. 

Republicans are the party that claims it is better than the evil
Democrats.  Suddenly, they are the Rainbow Republicans having sex in
gutters...

Spammy Sam, after the war, ex-Nazis claimed they were only following
orders from the true villains.  What bullshit...from Nazis and
RIPiglicans...

Funny how when a Democrat gets busted having sex with a woman, they
are all traitors.

When an entire herd of Republicans get busted having gay sex with male
hookers or in a restroom, Republicans claim it's a few bad apples and
suddenly want to get along with everyone and sing Kumbayah.





-- 

2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 rights make a left. 

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:24:31 -0700, orionca@earthlink.net wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:19:08 -0500, Irving C Saltzberg
><IrvingCSaltzberg@nospam.nul> wrote:
>
>>Newsgroups: dfw.singles,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,hawaii.politics,dfw.politics
>
>GoAT
>--
>John Conyers' comments about Bill Clinton pardoning convicted
>terrorists:
>
>"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a
>politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a
>Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our
>Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power
>to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that?
>Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Now
>the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that
>the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts
>that apply in each request for clemency."
>
>[EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT
>HAVE GRANTED CLEMENCY TO TERRORISTS]  (House of Representatives -
>September 09, 1999).  Passed 311-41; 72 voted "present", Conyers voted
>NAY)

The subject is RIPiglicans having gay sex and preaching family values.
Try to keep on the subject instead of babbling about nonsense that
RIPigs tried and failed to spin at the time and have made mute by
their treason over the last two Bush terms.

-- 

2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 rights make a left. 

In article <1188539516.459666.62250@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
 neoconis_ignoramus <bellamacina@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Aug 30, 6:32 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > In article <1188522773.374520.70...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Aug 30, 6:07 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > > > In article <1188521129.426701.274...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > You might consider the actual effect of hypocrisy on mankind - inverse
> > > > to the leftist hysteria over hypocrisy. Yawn.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Yawn all you want.   You support a party of utter hypocrites.  Trying
> > > to rationalize that away doesn't change that fact, nor does it change
> > > the fact you're a little sniveler who'd support a party of hypocrites
> > > over his supposed own standards.  Live with that, loser.
> >
> > Your focus on hypocrisy indicates a narcissistic view, because the only
> > actual effect of hypocrisy is personal. It has zero effect on the
> > direction of mankind.
> >
> > And, converse you your concerns, you cannot in any way show the
> > opposite. Quite the the shock, eh - your fervent moral code *means shit*
> > in the grand scheme, go rent a church.
> 
> LOL look at the amateur psychologist / philosopher.  Based on your
> "analysis", I suggest you stick to the day job.  That is, if you have
> one.

I must say, that was a brilliant deconstruction of my analysis. Public 
school?

On Sep 1, 11:17 am, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> In article <1188539516.459666.62...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 6:32 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > > In article <1188522773.374520.70...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 30, 6:07 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > > > > In article <1188521129.426701.274...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > You might consider the actual effect of hypocrisy on mankind - inverse
> > > > > to the leftist hysteria over hypocrisy. Yawn.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Yawn all you want.   You support a party of utter hypocrites.  Trying
> > > > to rationalize that away doesn't change that fact, nor does it change
> > > > the fact you're a little sniveler who'd support a party of hypocrites
> > > > over his supposed own standards.  Live with that, loser.
>
> > > Your focus on hypocrisy indicates a narcissistic view, because the only
> > > actual effect of hypocrisy is personal. It has zero effect on the
> > > direction of mankind.
>
> > > And, converse you your concerns, you cannot in any way show the
> > > opposite. Quite the the shock, eh - your fervent moral code *means shit*
> > > in the grand scheme, go rent a church.
>
> > LOL look at the amateur psychologist / philosopher.  Based on your
> > "analysis", I suggest you stick to the day job.  That is, if you have
> > one.
>
> I must say, that was a brilliant deconstruction of my analysis. Public
> school?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL, what's funnier, that you'd characterize your drivel as "analysis"
or that I'm supposed to take it seriously?  Here's a hint for ya -
being comparatively smarter than your average 12 year old still makes
you a stupid adult.

In article <1188679637.775738.22860@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
 neoconis_ignoramus <bellamacina@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Sep 1, 11:17 am, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > In article <1188539516.459666.62...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Aug 30, 6:32 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > > > In article <1188522773.374520.70...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > >  neoconis_ignoramus <bellamac...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 30, 6:07 pm, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <1188521129.426701.274...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > You might consider the actual effect of hypocrisy on mankind - 
> > > > > > inverse
> > > > > > to the leftist hysteria over hypocrisy. Yawn.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > Yawn all you want.   You support a party of utter hypocrites.  Trying
> > > > > to rationalize that away doesn't change that fact, nor does it change
> > > > > the fact you're a little sniveler who'd support a party of hypocrites
> > > > > over his supposed own standards.  Live with that, loser.
> >
> > > > Your focus on hypocrisy indicates a narcissistic view, because the only
> > > > actual effect of hypocrisy is personal. It has zero effect on the
> > > > direction of mankind.
> >
> > > > And, converse you your concerns, you cannot in any way show the
> > > > opposite. Quite the the shock, eh - your fervent moral code *means 
> > > > shit*
> > > > in the grand scheme, go rent a church.
> >
> > > LOL look at the amateur psychologist / philosopher.  Based on your
> > > "analysis", I suggest you stick to the day job.  That is, if you have
> > > one.
> >
> > I must say, that was a brilliant deconstruction of my analysis. Public
> > school?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> LOL, what's funnier, that you'd characterize your drivel as "analysis"
> or that I'm supposed to take it seriously?

Both.

> Here's a hint for ya -
> being comparatively smarter than your average 12 year old still makes
> you a stupid adult.

How clever.

In dfw.politics Irving C Saltzberg <IrvingCSaltzberg@nospam.nul> wrote:
> What else explains RIpiglican hypocrisy except their worshipping a
> closeted, gay Jesus?  Talking family values with one side of their
> mouth while practicing gay sex with the other.  Explains why they
> lawyer up instead of falling on their knees when caught down on their
> knees... :-)

http://cafepress.com/allblues