DUmmie FUnnies 08-07-08 ("Reuters admits altering Beirut photo")

DUmmie FUnnies ^ | August 7, 2006 | DUmmies and PJ-Comix

[Fenris6]

/omg it gets even better:

ConsAreLiars (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-06-06 04:07 PM Response to Reply #135
137. Do you now admit that the heading of your post was false? Or are you still standing by your assertion that "Reuters admits altering Beirut photo," even though there is not one bit of evidence of any such a statement by Reuters? Blurting out childish insults does not constitute evidence.

Hey ConsAreLiars, how insulated are you not to realize that Reuters has ADMITTED to doctoring the photo? Dumbass.

[Fenris6]

201. why were my posts in this thread deleted?

Prob b/c your avatar is a Star of David. Moonbats hate Jews.

[commonguymd]

Fun to watch that trainwreck happening.

[commonguymd]

This exchange says it all:



"What sort of man needs a restraining order against a woman?"

Dja ever see "Fatal Attraction?"

Ever hear of "Squeaky" Fromme?

Unstable women can be plenty dangerous.



Her response:


"Well-behaved women rarely make history.

it's not just a bumper sticker - it's a philosophy of life!"





This is in one of her comment sections.

[bcsco]

Oh, great. I just gave up popcorn. Back on the ol' diet again. Now I won't have anything to snack on while reading her garbage.

Well, here goes....

[bcsco]

Court is coming up on the 15th. I'll have to make a note to myself to follow up after that date. That is, if her site is still up. Apparently, other than inquiring whether she can sue the plaintiff's attorney and go after the judge, she hasn't sought legal council. She explicitly states she hasn't had any expense regarding this. OH, BOY!

[franksolich]

Apparently, other than inquiring whether she can sue the plaintiff's attorney and go after the judge, she hasn't sought legal counsel. She explicitly states she hasn't had any expense regarding this. OH, BOY!

Because rather than going to a local real-life attorney, she searched the internet for legal advice. This is a real basket-case here, and bears watching, at least for entertainment.

[bcsco]

"After consulting with Mr. John Haas, a lawyer affiliated with the denver firm pendleton, etc. I decided it was not cost effective to pursue legal action against Mr. Jeffrey Todd Goldstein.

"After consulting with Mr. Paul Davis, a lawyer affiliated with the denver firm moet/white, Count Cockula decided it was cost-effective to pursue legal action against me."

Apparently she did consult with an attorney, at one point, to pursue Jeff Goldstein. Her "...it was not cost effective" statement makes it clear he didn't think she had a case. What she hasn't done is acquire an attorney in her defense. That is a major mistake.

Her train is about at the end of track and the wreck is about to happen. She has no clue as to what constitutes libel or veiled threats. Her continued rants are fodder for the plaintiff's attorneys. She is clueless. She's enjoying the notoriety this has brought, but the fallout hasn't sunk in. WOW!

[franksolich]

If you check, though, you'll find out she consulted this attorney via the internet, not in real life.

And you are absolutely correct; she is being sued, and she does need an attorney.

[bcsco]

"I thought that maybe if the count were a slightly honorable warrior, he’d be willing to pay up to protect his kinfolk. Clearly this is not the case, but I do not see how offering to negotiate a settlement protecting Mrs. G and Satchel from further embarrassment is extortion."

Not only does she have a restraining order against her, she freely admits online to seeking money from the plaintiff. But she doesn't see how this can be considered extortion? Give me a break.

[KC_Conspirator]

That just proves that he's part of the Rovian plot to discredit Reuters and deflect criticism of Israel.

LOL! These people are certified whack jobs. Certified, I tell you!~