[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
…
And, yes I know Bill Press is a left leaning writer. If BB can post right leaning articles as proof of his position the same can be done by me. [/quote]
Ah come on now Elk – I went out and found some liberals who agree this is much ado about nothing.
And I did read your article – it doesn’t address any of the legal issues on which this whole thing will turn.
From what is out and known now, there’s nothing to this – though we’ll see if anything new comes out.
Some good journalistic forensics by Cliff May:
http://nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp
July 15, 2005, 8:27 a.m.
Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?
How about the least likely suspect?
This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA.
Read ? or reread ? his column from July 14, 2003 ( Robert Novak: Biography and Latest Articles ). All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is ?an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.?
Novak has said repeatedly that he was not told, and that he did not know, that Plame was ? or had ever been ? a NOC, an agent with Non-Official Cover. He has emphatically said that had he understood that she was any sort of secret agent, he would never have named her.
As for Novak?s use of the word ?operative,? he might as easily have called her an ?official,? an ?analyst, or an ?employee.? But, as a longtime newsman, he instinctively chose the sexiest term (one he routinely applies to political figures, too, i.e. ?a party operative?).
Reread Novak?s article, and you?ll also see that Novak in no way denigrates Wilson. On the contrary, he talks of Wilson?s ?heroism? in Iraq in 1991. And nowhere in his column does he say ? or even imply ? that Wilson was unqualified to conduct the Niger investigation or that Plame was responsible for getting him the assignment ? merely that she ?suggested sending him.?
Even so, it is unclear whether Novak?s sources may have committed a crime by talking to Novak about Plame. That would depend on a number of variables involving what they knew about Plame and how they came to know it. A prosecutor would have the power to compel Novak to testify regarding what was said to him and by whom.
Is this splitting hairs? Not at all. In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA operatives who are not working undercover. For example, when a CIA analyst wrote a book under the pseudonym ?Anonymous,? it was widely known that Anonymous was the Agency?s Michael Scheuer. Before long, someone revealed that in print. No crime was committed or alleged ? no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed.
So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.
The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003 ( http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=823 ), just two days after Novak?s column appeared. It carried this lead: ?Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security ? and break the law ? in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others??
Since Novak did not report that Plame was ?working covertly? how did Corn know that?s what she had been doing?
Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a ?statement of fact.? But in the article, he asserts that Novak ?outed? Plame ?as an undercover CIA officer.? Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, ?outing? Plame?s ?undercover? status.
Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, ?I will not answer questions about my wife.? Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn?s questions about his wife ? after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn?s piece and it?s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides ? and he provides much more information than Novak revealed.
Corn also claims that Wilson ?will not confirm nor deny that his wife ?works for the CIA.? Corn adds: ?But let?s assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson ??
On what basis could Corn ?assume? that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a ?top-secret? operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been ?outed? in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column which, as I noted, is sympathetic to Wilson and Plame.
The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson ? to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.
Keep in mind that from early on there were two possible but contradictory scenarios:
Members of the Bush administration intentionally exposed a covert CIA agent as a way to take revenge against her husband who had written a critical op-ed.
Members of the Bush administration were attempting to set the record straight by telling reporters that it was not Vice President Cheney who sent Wilson on the Africa assignment as Wilson claimed; rather Wilson?s wife, a CIA employee, helped get him the assignment. (And that is indeed the conclusion of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee.)
Corn?s article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame?s undercover work, her ?dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.? But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?
Corn concludes that Plame?s career ?has been destroyed by the Bush administration.? And here he does, finally, quote Wilson directly. Wilson says: ?Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.?
Corn has assured us several times that Wilson refused to answer questions about his wife, refused to confirm or deny that she worked for the CIA, refused to ?acknowledge whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee.? But he is willing to say on the record that ?naming her this way? was an act of treachery? That?s not talking about his wife? That?s not providing confirmation? There is only one way to interpret this: Wilson did indeed talk about his wife, her work as a secret agent, and other matters to Corn (and perhaps others?) on a confidential basis.
If Wilson did tell Corn that his wife was an undercover agent, did he commit a crime? I don?t claim to know. But the charge that someone committed a crime by naming Plame as a covert agent was also made by Corn, apparently for the first time, in this same article. No doubt, the independent prosecutor and the grand jury will sort it out.
Criminality aside, if Wilson revealed to Corn that Plame worked as a CIA ?deep-cover? operative ?tracking parties trying to buy or sell? WMDs, surely that?s news.
And it is consequential: On the basis of Novak?s story alone, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have had a clue that Plame ? presumably under a different name and while living in a foreign country ? had been a NOC. At most, her friends in Washington would have been surprised to learn that she didn?t work where she said she worked.
But once Corn published the fact that Plame had been a ?top-secret operative,? and once he quoted Wilson saying what exposing his wife would mean ? and once Plame posed for Vanity Fair photographers ? anyone who had ever known her in a different context and with a different identity would have been tipped off.
But they would not have been tipped by Novak ? nor, based on what we know so far, by Karl Rove. Rather, it appears they would have been tipped off by Joe Wilson who, the publicly available evidence strongly suggests, leaked like a sieve to The Nation?s David Corn.
? Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
My comparison has to do with Gotti getting off many indictments of charges that were more then likely accurate hence the term ‘Teflon Don’.[/quote]
Gotti was charged in a court of law with criminal activity, Bush never was…
“Called upon” by whom? The democratic spin machine? LOL…how silly.
And you think this because you on the opposite side of the political fence. You can’t prove anything.(yawn).
Please name just one which you have proof of…otherwise you are just a bitter…well you know the rest 
When you cool it with the use of hyperbole to try to make your point. These threads are actually getting nutty…“Bush is a criminal” LOL
Oh darn you just wasted another three lines with useless innuendo when you could have shown me proof…if…you have any!
No, actually I wish you were not an angry liberal. But when you make such ridiculous claims with no (clears throat) PROOF you leave me no alternative.
Take care pal
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
…
And, yes I know Bill Press is a left leaning writer. If BB can post right leaning articles as proof of his position the same can be done by me.
Ah come on now Elk – I went out and found some liberals who agree this is much ado about nothing.
And I did read your article – it doesn’t address any of the legal issues on which this whole thing will turn.
From what is out and known now, there’s nothing to this – though we’ll see if anything new comes out.[/quote]
But he must be a criminal he is a republican, conservative Christian President…LOL…This is funny stuff!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
…
And, yes I know Bill Press is a left leaning writer. If BB can post right leaning articles as proof of his position the same can be done by me.
Ah come on now Elk – I went out and found some liberals who agree this is much ado about nothing.
And I did read your article – it doesn’t address any of the legal issues on which this whole thing will turn.
From what is out and known now, there’s nothing to this – though we’ll see if anything new comes out.[/quote]
Well, I would agree nothing much is going to come of it and In the big scheme of things everyone involved especially the wife are fine and unharmed.
To me it’s just representative of the dishonorable levels that Rove and others in the Bush camp will sink to.
I didn’t mean for my link to be viewed as hard evidence, just some points that make sense of the matter on some of the trivial points that Bush supporters like to make into a bigger or lesser issue if it’s going to benefit their argument.
You know the tactics that as a lawyer you are good at using to bolster your argument.
Oh, and I meant analogy on that last post.
e,
I love that you’ve become a crusader for truth, justice, and law.
Wasn’t it a few short years ago when a sitting President was allowed to decide what lies were “acceptable.” Obstruction of justice, destroying a woman’s right to protect herself, putting himself above the law, on and on and on.
Hey, at least he could give a great speech!!!
I think your words were, “It’s just a blowjob.”
Now we’ve got a situation that becomes less relevant by the day. Very few legal minds think this is worth talking about.
Here you are with the: Those devious Republicans, they aren’t being held accountable!!! They are mafia thugs!!! The repub machine is shielding them.
First of all, it appears Rove has been 100% open from the very beginning. Second, the mafia comparision is bitter, small, wrong, and weak. You’re coming apart.
I should write a book called: The Summer of 2004. Remember the good old days when John Edwards was going around saying, “We’re going to win.” Time had the headlines “The Contenders.” farenheit 911 was making your sphincter pucker. Record contributions being made to the democratic party. john “I’ll keep a little stashed away to pay for botox, bitch” kerry was reporting for duty.
God, what good times!!!
Your vehement denunciation of Rove and your hasty conclusion proves that your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
You want an example of some real “getting away with it?” Of course you do. Here’s the “Grand Old Man” of the democratic party (we’ve already discussed sheets byrd).
Got this e-mail today:
"Something We Should Remember
From Mary Jo Kopechne
I would have been 65 years of age this year. Read about me and my killer below.
When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloating on Capitol Hill on behalf of liveral causes, it was perhaps excusable to ignore his deplorable past.
But now that he’s become a leading Republican attack dog, positioning himself as Washington’s leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are now over.
It’s time for the GOP to stand up and remind America why this chief spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980 - time to say the words Mary Jo Kopechne out loud.
As is often the case, Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this “Conscience of the Democratic Party” left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking and partying with the young blond campaign worker. But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel.
Those young voters don’t know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy’s Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the Democrats’ leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.
Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier – for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final. Or why the US Army denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.
As they listen to the Democrats’ “Liberal Lion” accuse President Bush of “telling lie after lie after lie” to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don’t know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach, when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.
It’s time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer “go along with the gag” when it comes to Uncle Ted’s rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House.
And if the Republicans don’t, let’s do it ourselves by passing this forgotten disgrace around the Internet to wake up memories of what a fraud and fake Teddy really is.
The Democratic Party should be ashamed to have the national disgrace from Massachusetts as their spokesman.
And the GOP needs to say so out loud!!!
Please pray for our Troops fighting for us.
God Bless you All"
Nice freakin’ party, e.
JeffR
Ah, Zeb, I wish you weren’t an angry bitter rightwinger who has fixated on democrats and gays to project your feelings of hostility and frustration that you can’t control others. Have a good evening! 
Jerff, is a good barometer for truth. The nastier more sarcastic and hostile his responses are, the more you can count on the validity of the post that stimulated his infantile regression.
Oh, and jerffy, best of luck to you on your calling of arms against Ted Kennedy.
Every time I see him on T.V. for now on it will bring some satisfaction to me knowing that he causes you enough grief that you degenirate into acting like a fourteen year old jilted schoolgirl with the emotional pleas for his head.
Again jerff in all honesty, I question your loudly proclaimed profession with the level of obsession you show to politics.
You know what I don’t like the guys currently in charge, but I gotta live with it until hopefully the next election and then still I may be disappointed.
But, hey that’s life and unless it’s an issue that effects me directly like hauling me to jail for checking out the wrong book at the library, I will deal with it and go on with my life.
You on the other hand seem to live and die emotionally over issues that healthy sane people do not get their blood pressure up over.
You fixation on Ted Kennedy seems to me weird at the very least.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Ah, Zeb, I wish you weren’t an angry bitter rightwinger who has fixated on democrats and gays to project your feelings of hostility and frustration that you can’t control others. Have a good evening! ;)[/quote]
All I asked for is some proof when you call the President a “criminal.” I don’t think that’s asking too much.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Oh, and jerffy, best of luck to you on your calling of arms against Ted Kennedy.
Every time I see him on T.V. for now on it will bring some satisfaction to me knowing that he causes you enough grief that you degenirate into acting like a fourteen year old jilted schoolgirl with the emotional pleas for his head.
Again jerff in all honesty, I question your loudly proclaimed profession with the level of obsession you show to politics.
You know what I don’t like the guys currently in charge, but I gotta live with it until hopefully the next election and then still I may be disappointed.
But, hey that’s life and unless it’s an issue that effects me directly like hauling me to jail for checking out the wrong book at the library, I will deal with it and go on with my life.
You on the other hand seem to live and die emotionally over issues that healthy sane people do not get their blood pressure up over.
You fixation on Ted Kennedy seems to me weird at the very least. [/quote]
I think if you knew who Jeff really was you would be quite surprised
(And no I’m not Jeff…See I know how your mind works…)
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
But, hey that’s life and unless it’s an issue that effects me directly like hauling me to jail for checking out the wrong book at the library, I will deal with it and go on with my life.
[/quote]
You can’t name a single way in which your life has been intruded upon post 9/11 - yet you can scaremonger with the best of them.
You are just like the rest of the ABB crowd. If the facts aren’t there, make them up. If you are refuted time and again, just yell your lies louder.
This ‘case’ against Rove is nothing more than the same song, different verse. There is absolutely no proof to any charge. There isn’t even a charge that can legally be made against Rove.But that doesn’t stop the losers from trying to take out the guy that stole the election from the losers not once, but twice.
Give it a rest. Youguys are just sorry sorry losers - and your game plan sucks. Maybe you guys should try a new playbook instead of trying the same stupiod, worn out play over and over.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Oh, and jerffy, best of luck to you on your calling of arms against Ted Kennedy.
Every time I see him on T.V. for now on it will bring some satisfaction to me knowing that he causes you enough grief that you degenirate into acting like a fourteen year old jilted schoolgirl with the emotional pleas for his head.
Again jerff in all honesty, I question your loudly proclaimed profession with the level of obsession you show to politics.
You know what I don’t like the guys currently in charge, but I gotta live with it until hopefully the next election and then still I may be disappointed.
But, hey that’s life and unless it’s an issue that effects me directly like hauling me to jail for checking out the wrong book at the library, I will deal with it and go on with my life.
You on the other hand seem to live and die emotionally over issues that healthy sane people do not get their blood pressure up over.
You fixation on Ted Kennedy seems to me weird at the very least.
I think if you knew who Jeff really was you would be quite surprised
(And no I’m not Jeff…See I know how your mind works…)[/quote]
Zeb, now I am curious… are you saying he isn’t a cop, but someone else holding a different position?
Rainjack, everything you say regarding politics is correct and right, anybody who disagrees with you is an ABB sorry loser.
Yeah, you seem like someone that is grounded in reality or looks at things objectively, yeah that’s for sure.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Elk
Gotti? Please, that is absurd. I know you have strong feelings about the war and our participation and the circumstances of our entering into action–and I respect that, but that is a poor analogy. And to suggest that this administration is out of line even compared to previous ones is weak.
Your answer to ZEB’s question was along the lines of “you know they did things wrong, even though there’s no proof. There are things we don’t know about.”
I mean, come on. Back a statement up like that wiyth proof, not opinion and conjecture from the political foes of the administration.
I have reason to doubt our reported intentions and with what lead us into Iran. But other than that I see no major illegal activity going on in or around this administration
It was a small anology but what you choose to focus on. Do I think that Bush and company have been dishonest and dishonorable? Yes, yes, I do.
Do I think that they have up to this point gotten away with any kind of accountability for their actions? Yes, I most definitely do!
Do I think it is an acceptable anology to compare this to a criminal who repeatedely got away with crimes because of good spinning by his lawyer? Why the answer is yet again a big resounding Yes!
Do any one of us have proof? All you can do to trot out proof are post articles from conservative writers who espouse your view.
So, don’t act like you have any more angle on truth or proof then I do. [/quote]
Small analogy!
It was the entirity of your post.
The court of public opinion has already tried and convicted Bush and his administration. (See yourself et. al.)
I don’t need proof to ‘prove’ no wrongdoing has/hasn’t gone on. One who accuses the President and his administration of criminal activity should step up to the plate with facts or at least good referenced material leading the way. Don’t spin this on me. You made the accusation, I simply asked for something to back it up.
Your assertion that those who don’t believe the President of the U.S. is as criminally culpable as the head of a mafia organization must be conservative
idealogues who can’t see anything but red is a weak response to cover the fact it was an irresponsible statememnt.
I’m not as pro-Bush and starkly conservative as you assume.
Hello all,
It seems some of the right-wingers are a little unclear about the cyclical nature of American politics, what with all the cries of “losers, losers, losers, bitter liberals, Bush-haters, blah, blah, blah!” Remember guys, eventually the Republicans will wind up on the losing side and the Dems or whoever will hold sway, then the Repubs will win again and on and on and on. So how about graguating high-school and actually giving that aspect of the debate a rest. I mean is that your last refuge when you run out of any other retort? Bush had about, what, a 2 or 3 percent margin of victory so the country is roughly equally divided. Not exactly a mandate.
So what crimes have the Bush admin committed? I don’t know but the Iraq war is a cluster-fuck even if it isn’t exactly criminal. And the complete violation of detainees legal rights at Guantanamo and elsewhere seem pretty criminal to me, although I’m sure A) some of you guys think it’s okay to violate our own laws if the ends justify the means (and the people involved are swarthy middle-eastern types) and B) BB will explain that there is a legal loop-hole or precedent that somehow makes it not a crime to deny people due process and legal representation and that it is okay to harass, humiliate and intimidate people in American custody, whether there is any proof they are involved in terroristic activity at all. I mean, police in America are not allowed, legally speaking, to to this sort of thing, so why is it okay in this instance?
So BB, (and this is not meant sarcastically, I’m really unclear about the legalities here) explain to me how it is that an indigent Mexican illegal alien must be read his rights, given legal counsel, a speedy trial and the opportunity to answer the accusations against him in Texas but the guys at Gitmo can be held indefinitely even after it has become clear that the majority have no connection to terrorism, other than being Arab or Moslem?
As for jailing reporters, it seems to me that the Fifth Estate has always had some leeway as far as protecting their sources goes. It does seem that putting reporters in jail would curtail or at least have a chilling effect upon a free press, especially if it becomes indiscriminate or a tool in the hands of an unscrupulous administration. I don’t know if that is what is happening here, just my general thought about it.
WMD
Sasquatch, I am hoping that peoples who are in a position more suited to it then me to expose this admins wrongdoings will do it. I don’t have the money or resources to scour the land for proof in which to bring up a case. Is that going stop me from stating my view… No!
Hopefully it will be done at some point the likely hood though is that it won’t. Is that going to stop me from stating my view… yeah, you guessed it, hell no!
I am not saying this in front of the supreme court where one should be prepared with adequate “proof”, I am saying this in an internet forum where, I was under the impression that we can all express our opinions and views on the matter as long as the mods deem it appropriate.
I am not going to adjust my opinion to suite you are Zeb or even rainjack. I don’t ask any of you to express yourselves in the manner, I see fit and I won’t conform to your request of me to follow your desires.
Just to point out a little hypocrisy of the rabid right, I was just as offended by remarks against Kerry’s service in Vietnam as well as numerous Clinton remarks as these guys are for using the Teflon Don in a comparison to their idol.
They can be quite vicious and then play the “I’m so hurt and offended” card, I actually applaud their devious skill level.
[quote]WMD wrote:
Hello all,
It seems some of the right-wingers are a little unclear about the cyclical nature of American politics, what with all the cries of “losers, losers, losers, bitter liberals, Bush-haters, blah, blah, blah!” Remember guys, eventually the Republicans will wind up on the losing side and the Dems or whoever will hold sway, then the Repubs will win again and on and on and on. So how about graguating high-school and actually giving that aspect of the debate a rest. I mean is that your last refuge when you run out of any other retort? Bush had about, what, a 2 or 3 percent margin of victory so the country is roughly equally divided. Not exactly a mandate.
[/quote]
“Selected not elected”, blah blah blah. You are absolutely right. Politics is cyclical. And it is turning away from the libs currently. When the losers will lay down their partisan bullshit, their thinly veiled witch hunts, and their deluded elitist self-image, then maybe the tone will change.
But until they learn to lay down the ABB rhetoric, I will be damned if I give the losers a pass. This whole Rove ‘scandal’ is nothing more than an ABB witch hunt, and anyone who has taken a look at the facts would see through it. But that would be asking the ABB crowd to have an objective bone in their body. It ain’t happnin.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Sasquatch, I am hoping that peoples who are in a position more suited to it then me to expose this admins wrongdoings will do it. I don’t have the money or resources to scour the land for proof in which to bring up a case. Is that going stop me from stating my view… No!
Hopefully it will be done at some point the likely hood though is that it won’t. Is that going to stop me from stating my view… yeah, you guessed it, hell no!
I am not saying this in front of the supreme court where one should be prepared with adequate “proof”, I am saying this in an internet forum where, I was under the impression that we can all express our opinions and views on the matter as long as the mods deem it appropriate.
I am not going to adjust my opinion to suite you are Zeb or even rainjack. I don’t ask any of you to express yourselves in the manner, I see fit and I won’t conform to your request of me to follow your desires.
Just to point out a little hypocrisy of the rabid right, I was just as offended by remarks against Kerry’s service in Vietnam as well as numerous Clinton remarks as these guys are for using the Teflon Don in a comparison to their idol.
They can be quite vicious and then play the “I’m so hurt and offended” card, I actually applaud their devious skill level.
[/quote]
So you can get on the internet and accuse anyone of anyhting because you’re not in front of the Supreme Court.
WEAK
Do you even have specific wrongdoings in mind or are you just supposing because of your personal dislike for theman. I’m not asking you for proof positive, and I know you know that, but at least be somewhat specific.
I’ve not once suggested that you change your opinion to please me or anyone else. I simply asked for something to back up your analogy of the Pres. to a mafia don. Plain. Simple
You are the one who continues to play the same old card ad mauseum. Your ‘argument’ about those mentioned doesn’t work for everything ya know. I realize we are not in positions to affect change at the highest levels of gov’t, but I think it fair to ask you for something more specific than ‘he did something wrong. but will probably get away with it’ crapola.
Just because others always fall back on party lines does not make it an acceptable defense. You using it to rationalize your “analogy” is just as unacceptable.
Wow, mr. what is objectivity accuses others of lacking objectivity, hoorah!
“until they put learn to put down the ABB rhetoric” another way of saying until they agree with me rainjack.
Zebler, I am curious and I know you are bursting at the seams to let your secret out and shock and awe us with the true powerful identity of jerffy… C’mon Zeb, who is he really! Please, please, please, tell us!!!
Sasquatch, I hear you buddy, I understand you think it’s WEAK, but you know in my opinion, I question how people don’t say see what is to me glaring evidence. You know the saying about leading a horse to water?
I don’t believe there is proof that would sway your thoughts no matter how credible it was.
I certainly don’t believe there is proof in heaven or earth that would sway someone as dogmatic as rainjack or Zeb
Often times these debates turn into one person posting a coservatives writers oped and then a left leaning person posting theres. I can’t, nor do I care if I could, give you the proof you ask for it would be like trying to tell a Taliban that his religion was full of shit by showing him the Bible, an exercise in futility!