Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 29th, 2011 #1881
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Angry Steele is Crazy as a Shithouse Rat

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Liberty View Post
I posted it two weeks ago Don, you should try following your own advice and reading the thread.

So now that Ed has had an interview and is obviously not a loonie like you have been implying all through the 90 page thread, you come up with a cover up for your stream of bullshit by implying that he has now rewired his brain and is back to normal. You even throw in "Spin control" by Ed, to make him sound guilty, (a favourite MSM tactic) Your the one who needs some spin control, not Ed. You have been bashing Ed through the whole thread, that is your agenda here for whatever reason. It is very obvious now to everyone but your fellow shills that your the VNN " nigger in the woodpile", still bringing up some "steamy" (non-existent) romance. The reason Ed doesn't address this romance is because it is just part of the ADL script of bullshit to give him a motive to kill his wife.

In the interview Ed explains how the judge see sawed back and forth from one day to the next , (we don't know who was pulling his strings but I have a hunch), how they were ready to fly the expert witness back at the last second for $180k , but the charter service backs out? Ed explains that the tapes are setup with everything they need for a conviction, just a little to convenient. The sheeple jurors are told this same story with no refutation by any expert witness and come up with a predictable pro-government verdict, imagine that? The lesson of this case is that anyone can be brought to trial on trumped up bullshit and convicted in a ZOG star chamber court. No one is safe anymore in police state Amerikwa.

The real kicker for me is that he also wanted to kill his mother-in-law , they used the mother-in-law angle to get this in a Fed court. But the absurdity of someone trying to also bump off their in laws in another state hundreds of miles distant is just another "nigger in the woodpile" of the fed case (like Don is here.) Ed was right, with all these brain dead sheeple force fed a stream of ZOG bullshit daily, this country is in store for some hard times.
Steele has NEVER been interviewed. That audio in the American Free Press was a 30 minute press release. Not a single worthwhile question was asked. He still sees nothing wrong with writing steamy love letters from jail to his Ukrainian girlfriend who doesn't speak English. If you don't see the problem the two of you need to be treated in the same looney bin.

If Steele cannot see that trying to help a fool from Chicago who has been cheated out of $4,000 in a Russian bride scam is a waste of time, he is crazy. The country is on the brink of economic and governmental collapse. The old fool in Chicago needs to be taken for $400,000 instead.

If Steele can't see that ALL internet dating forums are forbidden to him after his wife accused him of using one in her divorce petition, he is crazy. You forget that Steele is embarrassing White Nationalism by getting himself arrested and making an even worse fool of himself afterward. All his behavior does is authenticate the recordings in the minds of the jury or any other unbiased observer.

As I have posted many times, this type of craziness is very spotty. Sanity is mixed with insanity. There has been another year for Steele's brain to rewire itself. I doubt that the job is complete. This cannot be determined until he is interviewed for the first time. By Steele's own admission he made a bad mistake by not testifying. This proves that he was either crazy then or now.

When I saw him threaten to sue Bonner County Jail because they didn't give him a free Taoist book, this was further proof that he was crazy. Kelsey could have gotten him one with no trouble. She already did that for a Russian book so he could write his Ukrainian girlfriend better. What this cost him was a move to the Moscow Idaho jail where he is a hundred miles from his wife instead of 20.

He has lied to the White Nationalist community repeatedly and taken all of you True Believer fools for a ride. He even fooled me for quite a while. He has scammed his supporters out of $120,000 and made himself a laughing stock. This does not excuse the rather crazy case of the Federal government. It is not the government's job to prove him crazy, but merely guilty. They should have the decency to dismiss the case and have Steele's head examined.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; June 29th, 2011 at 11:31 PM. Reason: typo
 
Old June 29th, 2011 #1882
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Default Cyndi Posts on Steele's Disbarred Lawyer

I wrote Cyndi and showed her how easy it was to have found out that McAlister was nearly disbarred in 2004 for cheating a female client. He also had to take ethics classes. I have no sypathy for the Steele crowd for hiring a lawyer who had been almost disbarred before the trial started. Steele's supporters who gave $120,000 to pay this scumbag were the ones who were really cheated.

Cyndi (Free the Innocent) does make some good points in her local fish wrap about the scumbag Fairfax and the government's handling of the case. She likes to expose the Negroes in the government's woodpile but not the ones in her husband's.
========
http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/...cc4c002e0.html

Free the Innocent posted at 9:54 am on Sat, Jun 11, 2011.
Posts: 11

You can laugh ("lol"), but none of this is funny! It certainly wouldn't be funny to you if a bomb was planted under your car! Or if you had an innocent loved one being falsely accused and convicted for something they didn’t do. Of course, you, who seem to enjoy passing judgment on others when you don't have a clue as to the truth of the matter, are obviously the same type of person who enjoys laughing at the expense of other people's pain. As usual you don't know what you are talking about. If you did, you would know that neither my husband nor I knew of this attorney until he was hired.

So, although Mr. McAllister, was the former chief prosecutor for the government in Colorado and was an Assistantant US Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois, and was otherwise well qualified, neither my husband nor I had any idea that Mr. McAllister's record would become so tarnished; because, these things did not happen prior to being hired. If there was any knowledge of this attorney's actions, he would not have been hired to represent my husband and, if you are so smart, why didn't you point them out at the time he was hired? Remember, McAllister's hiring was publically announced and there was comment regarding him at the time; where was your voice of warning?

Oh, you are so quick to judge with your low level, after-the-fact criticism; but think about this, it is not I who was asleep, rather, if you were awake and paying attention, you would see that Fairfax, the Idaho bomber, was not hired (well, at least not by my husband) to place the bomb on my car; he was hired to perform handyman work around our property. In fact, the government and Mr. Fairfax have admitted that it was the government that paid Mr. Fairfax $500 to travel to Oregon for them.

Of course, it is obvious that you have given no consideration to the fact that it was Fairfax who promised to tell the government about all of his crimes on June 8th, being aided by a local Idaho State Judge who was acting as his attorney, then Fairfax lied to the FBI by not informing them that there was a bomb on my car until I discovered it at the oil change garage a week later on June 15th (that is the same week that you and I and the public, were all exposed to this bomb through the neglect of the FBI, because Agent Sotka ignored hearing the word “bomb” on the recordings).

Have you also considered all of Fairfax' other lies and his other illegal actions in regards to both bombs that he supposedly manufactured that endangered so many other people? It appears that you, the FBI, the prosecutor and the judge all believe that --what Fairfax did-- was of so little consequence that he should suffer virtually no punishment. Because you are obviously of the mindset that the government and its minions can do no wrong, I shouldn't expect you to be anything but a closed minded person who laughs at the pain of others.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; June 29th, 2011 at 08:23 PM. Reason: typo
 
Old June 29th, 2011 #1883
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

So a lawyer milked the Ed Steel case, by the way is there any one who ever hired a lawyer and did not learn the hard way. Of course there are some honest decent attorneys, but not in the majority.


Notice the Idaho Bar, and ABA, nor did any other organization offer advice or help in this case, just saying.
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp

Last edited by America First; June 29th, 2011 at 11:26 PM.
 
Old June 29th, 2011 #1884
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile A Contradiction in Terms

Quote:
Originally Posted by America First View Post
So a lawyer milked the Ed Steel case, by the way is there any one who ever hired a lawyer and did not learn the hard way. Of course their are some honest decent attornies, but not in the majority.

Notice the Idaho Bar, and ABA, nor did any other organization offer advice or help in this case, just saying.
You have discovered a wonder of racial science. Please post more about these honest decent attorneys at once.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; June 30th, 2011 at 08:35 PM. Reason: typo
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1885
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default Conspiracies

July 03, 2011

Conspiracies
By Paul Craig Roberts

In a June column, I concluded that "conspiracy theory" is a term applied to any fact, analysis, or truth that is politically, ideologically, or emotionally unacceptable. This column is about how common real conspiracies are. Every happening cannot be explained by a conspiracy, but conspiracies are common everyday events. Therefore, it is paradoxical that "conspiracy theory" has become a synonym for "unbelievable."

Conspiracies are commonly used in order to advance agendas. In the July issue of American Rifleman, a National Rifle Association publication, the organizationís executive vice president, Wayne Lapierre reports on a congressional investigation led by Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Darrell Issa of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and Department of Justice conspiracy to further gun control measures by smuggling guns across the border to Mexican criminals and blaming it on American firearm sellers.

Lapierre writes:

"Thanks to federal agents coming forth with evidence on the gun smuggling operation, this government sanctioned criminal conspiracy has been exposed.
"Leading an administration-wide cover up--marked by an arrogant dismissal of Congressí constitutional role--is Attorney General Eric Holder, who has blocked all efforts to get to the truth. His minions have directed federal employees with knowledge of the gun-running scam to refuse to cooperate with congressional investigators."[ We Need To Extinguish The Firewall Of Lies]
Many Americans will find the uncovered conspiracy hard to believe. The US Federal agency, BATFE, with the DOJís participation, has been providing firearms to Mexicoís drug cartels in order to create "evidence" to support the charge that US gun dealers are the source of weapons for Mexican drug gangs. The purpose of the governmentís conspiracy is to advance the gun control agenda.

Attorney General Eric Holderís stonewalling of the congressional investigation has resulted in Rep. Issaís warning to Holder: "Weíre not looking at the straw buyers, Mr. Attorney General. Weíre looking at you."

The most likely outcome will be that Grassley and Issa will have accidents or be framed on sex charges.

Conspiracies are also a huge part of economic life. For example, the Wall Street firm, Goldman Sachs, is known to have shorted financial instruments that it was simultaneously selling as sound investments to its customers. The current bailouts of EU countriesí sovereign debt is a conspiracy to privatize public domain.

Economic conspiracies are endless, and most succeed. NAFTA is a conspiracy against American labor, as are H-1B and L-1 work visas. Globalism is a conspiracy against First World jobs.

The sex charge against Dominique Strauss-Kahn could turn out to have been a conspiracy. According to the New York Times, the hotel maid has bank accounts in four states, and someone has been putting thousands of dollars into them.

Sometimes governments are willing to kill large numbers of their own citizens in order to advance an agenda. For example, Operation Northwoods was a plan for false flag terrorist events drafted by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by General Lyman Lemnitzer. It called for the CIA and other "black op" elements to shoot down Americans in the streets of Miami and Washington, D.C., to hijack or shoot down airliners, to attack and sink boats carrying Cuban refugees to the US, and to fabricate evidence that implicated Castro. The agenda of the Joint Chiefs and the CIA was to stir up American fear and hatred of Castro in order to support regime change in Cuba.

Before the reader cries "conspiracy theory," be apprised that the secret Operation Northwoods was made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. When the plan was presented to President Kennedy in 1962, he rejected it and removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Wikipedia quotes extensively from the planís menu of proposed false flag terrorist acts. Those who distrust Wikipedia can obtain a copy of the plan from the National Archives.

When I tell even highly educated people about Operation Northwoods, they react with disbelief--which goes to show that even US government-acknowledged conspiracies remain protected by disbelief a half century after they were hatched and 14 years after being revealed by the government.

An example of a conspiracy that is proven, but not officially acknowledged, is Israelís attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Captain Ward Boston, one of the two US Navy legal officers ordered to cover up the attack, not investigate it, revealed the Johnson Administrationís conspiracy, and that of every subsequent administration, to blame mistaken identity for what was an intentional attack. The unofficial Moorer Commission, led by Admiral Tom Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proved conclusively that the Israeli attack, which inflicted massive casualties on US servicemen, was an intentional attack. Yet, the US government will not acknowledge it, and few Americans even know about it.

Even the event Americans celebrate on July 4 was a conspiracy and was regarded as such by the British government and American colonials who remained loyal to King George. If we donít believe in conspiracies, why do we celebrate one on July 4?

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reaganís first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelowís Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1886
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Of course conspiracies happen. But you need evidence. It's the allegation of conspiracy where there is no evidence of a conspiracy that looks crazy.

There is no evidence that Steele was framed, only his say-so, and it's a far-fetched story on its face. If the idea was to take out Edgar J. Steele, there were much simpler and less risky ways to do it.

Frame-up conspiracy is the only defense left, other than insanity, to perpetrators like O.J. Simpson who have to explain away overwhelming evidence. Another example would be Marinus van der Lubbe, who was arrested at the scene of the Reichstag Fire.

Last edited by Hadding; July 4th, 2011 at 06:27 PM.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1887
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Of course conspiracies happen. But you need evidence. There is no evidence that Steele was framed, only his say-so, and it's a far-fetched story on its face. If the idea was to take out Edgar J. Steele, there were much simpler and less risky ways to do it.

Frame-up conspiracy is the only defense left, other than insanity, to perpetrators like O.J. Simpson who have to explain away overwhelming evidence.
Hadding, the notion that the feds came into this thing lily white is absurd on its face and you damn well know it.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1888
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
Hadding, the notion that the feds came into this thing lily white is absurd on its face and you damn well know it.
You need evidence of a conspiracy. You can't just assume it.

Nobody in the entire world except a few people who post on WN fora like this one and Stormfront and White News Now would believe that Ed Steele was framed with the (lack of) evidence presented thus far.

Last edited by Hadding; July 4th, 2011 at 06:47 PM.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1889
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
You need evidence of a conspiracy. You can't just assume it.

Nobody in the entire world except a few people who post on WN fora like this one and Stormfront and White News Now would believe that Ed Steele was framed with the (lack of) evidence presented thus far.
You've had Steele guilty-until-proven-innocent the entire time. You were throwing him under the bus at the beginning, and you're now kicking him when he's down.

Assume Pauly's theory is correct, that he's off his nut (which is by no means certain). Run the scenario a thousand times with a thousand different people and it never becomes a federal case. They're just old, sick men who need tenderness and someone to sit with them 24/7.

But in Steele's case, you've got the feds bragging about cross-agency partnerships coming together on the other side of the planet to untangle the stupidest murder plot ever conceived (in Bumfuck, Idaho, no less), which just happened to be hatched--supposedly--by a political enemy of the government, with their star witness an ex-con lowlife, and they admitted they threw away the original version of their primary audio evidence. The government couldn't even get the putative objects of the supposed plot to side with them.

You're full of horse shit, Hadding.

A person can't throw someone on his side under the bus.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; July 4th, 2011 at 07:18 PM.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1890
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,194
notmenomore
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Of course conspiracies happen. But you need evidence. There is no evidence that Steele was framed, only his say-so, and it's a far-fetched story on its face. If the idea was to take out Edgar J. Steele, there were much simpler and less risky ways to do it.

Frame-up conspiracy is the only defense left, other than insanity, to perpetrators like O.J. Simpson who have to explain away overwhelming evidence.
...and yet here the overwhelming evidence consists precisely of audio "recordings" that are sworn to by a convicted felon.

Having followed the trial as best I could at a distance, I'll have to say that I even understood the legal sense of the judge initially disallowing Steele's two "expert witnesses." It made sense to me, begrudgingly. And the judge also indicated that were the trial procedings to evolve along certain lines, that one of the experts in fact could be allowed - as later happened to be the case. The fact that the expert was unavailable to testify can be blamed on no one or nothing beyond the total incompetence of the defense coonsel - to put it in its most charitable form.

I'm willing to allow that even if Steele's expert had testified his testimony may well have been unconvincing or impeachable. Of course we'll never know on that particular matter.

The problem I have with the "overwhelming" or otherwise incontrovertible evidence is that the court required nothing, nada, zilch in the way of documented "chain-of-custody" of the audio recordings/equipment nor of the audio media used to prepare the evidence shown/played for the jury. Nothing, that is, but the word of the federal agents that the recordings presented were bonafide "true copies" or reproductions.

In the final analysis it seems that the overwhelming evidence use to convict Steele really has no more technical credibility that does Steele's claim that he's been framed:

Steele says he's been framed and the tapes are phony. The government says the tapes are real and prove Steele said it.

In an earlier time the government would have had to, minimally, make available the recording equipment, the recorded media, and the technicians involved in any way with the equipment, media, and subsequent chain and possession of the "evidence" to the defense and to the defense's expert examiners. If the government failed in any way to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that what the jury would hear was precisely the unaltered, unedited reproduction of the exposed media, then the evidence would be subject to either inadmissability or impeachment. In its day, there was both equipment and media that was very specifically designed and intended to pass all these tests for veracity and chain of custody.

As far as I can deduce, none of these requirements are presently held necessary or even of importance. I guess the fact that technology makes it convenient to minaturize and real-time recording equipment seems to trump all the old rules of evidence. It's as if the testimony of an FBI agent that what the jury hears is what was said now over-rides any question that could be had as to whether or not what the jury hears may be merely fabricated in a lab out of thin air.

When the government wishes to introduce audio recordings as evidence today, is it possible to date-stamp and time-stamp both equipment and media in such a way as to positively provide for subsequent verification that there are, for example, no pauses, gaps, insertions, or other manipulations of the media? Is all of this "stuff" sealed into evidence bags and locked up and held in such a way that there can be no reasonable possibility of any prior or subsequent tampering? Somehow, I'm not seeing this.

What I do see and do know and do understand is that with the current state of digital image and digital audio processing it is a small and simple matter to create "recordings" of just about anyone saying just about anything. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence (and I mean here evidence not depending on the say-so of an interested witness) that proves a tangible piece of recorded media was in fact made at the date and the hour claimed, that there is no possibility that the media has been edited in any way - either for deletions or insertions, and finally, that the parties to the recorded conversation are themselves credible witnesses, in the abence of all or any of these things then I would think that the evidence, far from being overwhelming, would likely come short of convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is this what happened at Steele's trial? Well, I wasn't there, so I really don't know how it went. One thing that is clear is that there was no stipulation as to the veracity of the recordings. [For example, in the Bill White Roanoke trial the defense never objected to evidence presented that had been taken from Bill's computers or that was presented as having been left on various answering machines or voicemails. This was because the evidence had all been reviewed in pre-trial discovery and was, accordingly, not in dispute by White or his attorneys as far as its accuracy or veracity was concerned.] In Steele's trial it's clear that objection was taken to the veracity of the "recordings" played for the jury.

Do I know what to believe? I wasn't there so: no. Based on what I have read about the trial would I, as a juror, have been convinced that it was in fact the defendent's whose voice I heard on the "tapes"? Somehow I don't think so. Perhaps I, as a juror, might just have given Ed Steele another chance to bring on his "expert witness."
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1891
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post

You're full of horse shit, Hadding.
That's your perspective. My perspective is that you're an irrational fucktard.

I think probably only a few people on these fora still believe at this point that Steele was framed (given that a year later there is no exculpatory evidence whatsoever), and the rest generally keep their mouths shut. It would be interesting to do a survey, but it would have to be confidential because I don't think most people would want to get into it when they know that they are going to be called all kinds of names and have their motives questioned for not believing what some others believe.

Last edited by Hadding; July 4th, 2011 at 07:27 PM.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1892
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by notmenomore View Post
Do I know what to believe? I wasn't there so: no. Based on what I have read about the trial would I, as a juror, have been convinced that it was in fact the defendent's whose voice I heard on the "tapes"? Somehow I don't think so. Perhaps I, as a juror, might just have given Ed Steele another chance to bring on his "expert witness."
When I was a federal juror on a negress's drug trial, it was clear the bitch was guilty as hell.

But the the US Attorney's case was ridiculous-bordering-on-incompetent.

There was no actual physical evidence, just a bunch of legal slander.

And that was in the case of one of the feds' protected species.

Ed Steele is a political enemy. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, which any fair-minded observer would find substantial.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1893
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,194
notmenomore
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by notmenomore View Post
Perhaps I, as a juror, might just have given Ed Steele another chance to bring on his "expert witness."

I'll have to "PS" that I think Ed Steele could have done a great deal to convince me he DID NOT say the incriminating things that were "on the tapes" had he taken the stand to do so. Of course had he taken the stand I would no doubt have heard his voice to compare to the tapes, which may not have been helpful. On the other hand, were he truly innocent, then I think he should have been able to do remarkably well on cross-examination. His excuse that he would have lost his temper seems lame.
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1894
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
That's your perspective. My perspective is that you're an irrational fucktard.

I think probably only a few people on these fora still believe at this point that Steele was framed (given that a year later there is no exculpatory evidence whatsoever), and the rest generally keep their mouths shut. It would be interesting to do a survey, but it would have to be confidential because I don't think most people would want to get into it when they know that they are going to be called all kinds of names and have their motives questioned for not believing what some others believe.
What a slimy piece of crap you are, Hadding. You can shove your gutter perspective back up your ass.

So now everyone secretly agrees with you, yet this (asserted) overwhelming majority is cowed into silence by. . .me?

In a political war (or any war, for that matter), you don't throw somebody on your side under the bus. That's true if a comrade shoots up a liquor store in broad daylight, or in the Steele case, which is damn near 180* from the former.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1895
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Just wondering, Hadding. . .

How do you feel about the defendant's treatment by the government in the Strauss-Khan case contra that in the Steele case?
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1896
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
In a political war (or any war, for that matter), you don't throw somebody on your side under the bus. That's true if a comrade shoots up a liquor store in broad daylight....
Okay so you would be protesting Steele's innocence even if you absolutely knew that he were guilty, even when the alleged crime has nothing to do with promoting the cause.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1897
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
Just wondering, Hadding. . .

How do you feel about the defendant's treatment by the government in the Strauss-Khan case contra that in the Steele case?
I predicted that DSK would claim that it was sex by consent, and that unless some witness to coercion -- somebody that at least overheard a struggle -- could be produced, he would go free.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1898
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Okay so you would be protesting Steele's innocence even if you absolutely knew that he were guilty, even when the alleged crime has nothing to do with promoting the cause.
I wouldn't be rubbing salt in the fucking wound, Hadding. Nobody with any sense would.

Partially the reason is morale.

Partially the reason is image.

Partially the reason is pure selfish blowback aversion.

There is -zero- benefit in the Steele case of conceding any ground to the enemy.

And the goverment's case is dubious in the extreme.

There is no upside to pushing "Steele was guilty," even if you think he is. It's a neutral-to-loser position.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; July 4th, 2011 at 07:52 PM.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1899
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
I predicted that DSK would claim that it was sex by consent, and that unless some witness to coercion -- somebody that at least overheard a struggle -- could be produced, he would go free.
Wow, you knew all about it. I'm shocked.
 
Old July 4th, 2011 #1900
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
I predicted that DSK would claim that it was sex by consent, and that unless some witness to coercion -- somebody that at least overheard a struggle -- could be produced, he would go free.
You don't think the government could produce some equivalent of Larry Fairfax in the Strauss-Khan case if it so desired?
 
Reply

Tags
edgar steele

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:54 PM.
Page generated in 0.28027 seconds.