zeb, good to see your at it again. You threw those robes on mighty early this morning. Every one of my statements you highlited are my view of the situation and I would gladly make them again.
I haven’t forgotten, are you going to tell us who Jerffy really is? You’ve been rather quite since initally alluding to his true identity.
On the idea that the President is changing the standards or backing off from some pledge to “fire anyone involved.”
September 30, 2003
Excerpt:
QUESTION: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn?t a special counsel be better?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There?s leaks at the executive branch; there?s leaks in the legislative branch. There?s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
And so I welcome the investigation. I ? I?m absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There?s a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.
I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
June 10, 2004
EXCERPT:
QUESTION: Given ? given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney?s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent?s name?
THE PRESIDENT: That?s up to ?
QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that?s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
My comment: The President was confirming what he had said previously, not parsing the reporter’s question to make certain the reporter had quoted him properly. He was standing by what he said previously, which was that he would “take care of” anyone who broke the law.
There was never a pledge to “fire the leaker,” and so Bush couldn’t be backing off of one – there was definitely a statement one could interpret as a pledge to fire anyone who was found to break the law, and that’s all Bush confirmed.
BB -
Have you not read this thread? Do you not realize that it matters not one iota what the truth is, or what the President really said?
Truth has absolutely no place in the thought processes of the ABBers. They have proved it in spades on this very thread.
Look at elk’s pitiful attempt at logic in which he beautifully articulates the logic of the loser left. This is a paraphrase, but it smells a lot like this: “Even if they can’t prove that he comitted a crime, he has to be guilty of something”.
What is the point in trying to introduce logic? It will only be met with personal insults. I wouldn’t be suprised at all if elk, or vroom doesn’t infer that you are a racist because you support the president.
[quote]100meters wrote:
…
Second there seems to be an effort to disguise the issue (of course!) on the right. One issue is leaking a covert agent’s idenity. Well her idenity was leaked by any measure, but was she covert? [/quote]
That’s the question that needs to be answered, and if she didn’t meet the statutory definition, which it looks as if she did not, given the time restriction regarding being in the field in the last five years, then this wouldn’t be a problem.
Really? So any time a prosecutor is continuing to pursue open items in his investigation, logic dictates that every open item should be presumed resolved in favor of guilt? Wait til I tell Ken Starr…
I’m glad you are seeing that. Being all over the place can be interpreted in some quarters as being a liar, but that’s for another thread, or at least another sub-topic of this one.
[quote]
The CIA says:
“The CIA declined to discuss Plame’s intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. “If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral,” the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.” [/quote]
No reason other than to further whatever political grudges/fights are going on between the CIA and the VP or the White House. Or whatever other reason they might have other than what is stated. This is the CIA we’re talking about, right?
I’ll have to look into this more, but I know a little about these different and further allegations now from reading a couple WSJ news articles.
To inform anyone else interested, it’s been alleged/reported that there was a mark on an internal memorandum [that no one is certain who read or to whom it was distributed] that may have been a short-hand indication that the info that Plame had recommended Wilson was classified at some level (the govt. has three levels: Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential). The memo did not ID Plame as an undercover agent, nor specifically designate that the info was classified – the claim is the mark on the memo was shorthand for the fact it shouldn’t be shared, for whatever reason.
In fact, why don’t I just excerpt the actual news article:
[i]The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson’s involvement in her husband’s trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn’t be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn’t specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.
Generally, the federal government has three levels of classified information – top secret, secret and confidential – all indicating various levels of “damage” to national security if disclosed. There also is an unclassified designation – indicating information that wouldn’t harm national security if shared with the public – but that wasn’t the case for the material on the Wilsons prepared by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. It isn’t known what level of classification was assigned to the information in the memo.
Who received the memo, which was prepared for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and how widely it was circulated are issues as Mr. Fitzgerald tries to pinpoint the origin of the leak of Ms. Wilson’s identity. According to the person familiar with the document, it didn’t include a distribution list. It isn’t known if President Bush has seen the memo.
Mr. Fitzgerald has subpoenaed the phone logs from Air Force One for the week of the Africa tour, which precedes the revelation of Ms. Wilson’s CIA identity in a column by Robert Novak on July 14. In that piece, Mr. Novak identified Valerie Plame, using Ms. Wilson’s maiden name, saying that “two senior administration officials” had told him that Ms. Wilson suggested sending her husband to Niger.
Mr. Novak attempted to reach Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, in the days before his column appeared. However, Mr. Fleischer didn’t respond to Mr. Novak’s inquiries, according to a person familiar with his account. Mr. Fleischer, who has since left the administration, is one of several officials who testified before the grand jury. [/i]
Hardly damning proof. Not any proof, actually – but definitely something a good investigator would investigate more thoroughly. A memo that no one knows if Rove read, that had some designation that didn’t indicate info was government classified information. If there is any sort of knowledge standard, this certain won’t satisfy it.
I’ve heard this claim made too, but I’ve seen no non-disclosure agreements by which to make any sort of judgment. Have you? If so, would you mind posting a link?
Again, it’s not established that either the info was government classified or just that whoever wrote the memo had given it some marking, and it’s not established that either Rove or Libby had or read the memo, giving them whatever knowledge about its sensitivity that it would convey.
Actually, not “uh oh,” unless he said, “I affirmatively did not discuss Plame with Cooper.” An omission is not a lie when one has no duty to speak. And that’s even giving your position the benefit of the doubt that he did it on purpose, as opposed to failing to remember one statement in a phone conversation in which he really didn’t say very much, on a call he didn’t originate.
Squishy, unproved, and jumping the gun – and it’s interesting how this has progressed from a focus on “outing the secret agent,” to when that didn’t work, to trying to get Rove on other grounds. We’ll see what comes of the investigation – but given what’s out there now, there’s nothing to it.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
QUESTION: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn?t a special counsel be better?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There?s leaks at the executive branch; there?s leaks in the legislative branch. There?s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
There was never a pledge to “fire the leaker,” and so Bush couldn’t be backing off of one – there was definitely a statement one could interpret as a pledge to fire anyone who was found to break the law, and that’s all Bush confirmed.
[/quote]
BB:
You are going to have to stop ruining the ABB crowds take on this situation. You know how they hate those pesky little things called FACTS!
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
zeb, good to see your at it again. You threw those robes on mighty early this morning. Every one of my statements you highlited are my view of the situation and I would gladly make them again.
I haven’t forgotten, are you going to tell us who Jerffy really is? You’ve been rather quite since initally alluding to his true identity.[/quote]
Elk:
I’m waiting for your defender vroom to answer my post. Thank you for confirming the above quotes. However, they are there on this thread for all to see. We (all who read this part of the forum) are aware that you indeed hate President Bush. You have done a great job in communicating that fact. Now, if you only had some proof to back up the accusations. Oh well…again we can’t let facts get in the way now can we?
I am not at liberty to say exactly who Jeff is, sorry. Suffice it to say that I think you would be surprised to learn of his real occupation (I’m such a tease). Why don’t you PM him and ask him yourself?
Also, I honestly want to tell you from the bottom of my heart, you have a great back! You obviously spent a lot of time on it and it’s paid off! (how much can you barbell row?) Presumably that’s one thing we can agree on 
Still your friend,
Zeb
[quote]rainjack wrote:
BB -
Have you not read this thread? Do you not realize that it matters not one iota what the truth is, or what the President really said?
Truth has absolutely no place in the thought processes of the ABBers. They have proved it in spades on this very thread.
Look at elk’s pitiful attempt at logic in which he beautifully articulates the logic of the loser left. This is a paraphrase, but it smells a lot like this: “Even if they can’t prove that he comitted a crime, he has to be guilty of something”.
What is the point in trying to introduce logic? It will only be met with personal insults. I wouldn’t be suprised at all if elk, or vroom doesn’t infer that you are a racist because you support the president.[/quote]
rainjack,
I’ve been reading, but I’ve been hoping to veer back on topic here.
I appreciate your ardor – I don’t care much for people insinuating racism, and it does nothing to help further a discussion. In fact, it pretty much halts any discussion that was going on in its tracks, because people feel the need to respond when faced with what is essentially the worst insult in modern society, perhaps other than child molester. And it really doesn’t hold that if you know it’s not true you won’t respond – I think we all know how we would respond if some one was calling us “child molesters” in the mall or something. See the progression of this thread for any evidence you need for that claim.
It’s akin to when someone throws out the “Nazi” insult. All discussion of the actual issue ceases. No one passes go, and no one collects $200.
In fact, I think it should be an official penalty time out. Once “racism” or “Nazi” is tossed out where it’s obviously a stretch or a minsconstruction, everyone returns to his corner, the offender is docked two Grow! Bars, and everyone returns to the real point he was making before the slur was tossed out.
Now I don’t want to toss any further stones out here, and I didn’t use any names, but you know where I stand. So can we discuss the (hijacked) topic a little more now?
BTW, on the actual topic, Congress is considering introducing some reporter-shield laws to make a statutory privilege – at least for federal investigations. Stay tuned.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
zeb, good to see your at it again. You threw those robes on mighty early this morning. Every one of my statements you highlited are my view of the situation and I would gladly make them again.
I haven’t forgotten, are you going to tell us who Jerffy really is? You’ve been rather quite since initally alluding to his true identity.
Elk:
I’m waiting for your defender vroom to answer my post. Thank you for confirming the above quotes. However, they are there on this thread for all to see. We (all who read this part of the forum) are aware that you indeed hate President Bush. You have done a great job in communicating that fact. Now, if you only had some proof to back up the accusations. Oh well…again we can’t let facts get in the way now can we?
I am not at liberty to say exactly who Jeff is, sorry. Suffice it to say that I think you would be surprised to learn of his real occupation (I’m such a tease). Why don’t you PM him and ask him yourself?
Also, I honestly want to tell you from the bottom of my heart, you have a great back! You obviously spent a lot of time on it and it’s paid off! (how much can you barbell row?) Presumably that’s one thing we can agree on
Still your friend,
Zeb[/quote]
Much like I am sure you didn’t like when Clinton is in office, I don’t care for GWB and his admin. You are the one using the word hate, let’s be clear on that. Not a word that a pious man should be using to describe anyone.
I really don’t care who jerffy is, I was just poking fun at you for your eagerness to allude to his awe inspiring identity. I don’t really care for those that have to allude to people PMing them or powerful hidden identities to bolster their cause.
Don’t be trying to butter me up with the back compliments you sly old fox.
Still your friend,
Elk
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:
BB -
Have you not read this thread? Do you not realize that it matters not one iota what the truth is, or what the President really said?
Truth has absolutely no place in the thought processes of the ABBers. They have proved it in spades on this very thread.
Look at elk’s pitiful attempt at logic in which he beautifully articulates the logic of the loser left. This is a paraphrase, but it smells a lot like this: “Even if they can’t prove that he comitted a crime, he has to be guilty of something”.
What is the point in trying to introduce logic? It will only be met with personal insults. I wouldn’t be suprised at all if elk, or vroom doesn’t infer that you are a racist because you support the president.
rainjack,
I’ve been reading, but I’ve been hoping to veer back on topic here.
I appreciate your ardor – I don’t care much for people insinuating racism, and it does nothing to help further a discussion. In fact, it pretty much halts any discussion that was going on in its tracks, because people feel the need to respond when faced with what is essentially the worst insult in modern society, perhaps other than child molester. And it really doesn’t hold that if you know it’s not true you won’t respond – I think we all know how we would respond if some one was calling us “child molesters” in the mall or something. See the progression of this thread for any evidence you need for that claim.
It’s akin to when someone throws out the “Nazi” insult. All discussion of the actual issue ceases. No one passes go, and no one collects $200.
In fact, I think it should be an official penalty time out. Once “racism” or “Nazi” is tossed out where it’s obviously a stretch or a minsconstruction, everyone returns to his corner, the offender is docked two Grow! Bars, and everyone returns to the real point he was making before the slur was tossed out.
Now I don’t want to toss any further stones out here, and I didn’t use any names, but you know where I stand. So can we discuss the (hijacked) topic a little more now?
BTW, on the actual topic, Congress is considering introducing some reporter-shield laws to make a statutory privilege – at least for federal investigations. Stay tuned.[/quote]
Oh, yes, I agree with your judgment. I think it’s terrible to make a racist reference but I entirely condone the flagrant use of the F word and calling people vaginas.
I wonder if rainjack was a dem who made references to illegal alien cockroaches and I was Bush supporting repub if you like a good lawyer would make a case for me?
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Oh, yes, I agree with your judgment. I think it’s terrible to make a racist reference but I entirely condone the flagrant use of the F word and calling people vaginas.
I wonder if rainjack was a dem who made references to illegal alien cockroaches and I was Bush supporting repub if you like a good lawyer would make a case for me?[/quote]
Elk,
I don’t condone swearing or smoking, and only engage the former minimally myself, depending on the company, but on the sliding scale of my review I view them as less bad than using crack and using the “racist” or “Nazi” epithets. I hope my analogy wasn’t out of place…
Thanks Rainjack, I think I’ll just refer to this little gem whenever someone gets their panties up their snatch when I call them an ass-clown or something.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
You may also want to look at yourself through the lens of the statement you just made. Sometimes you don’t like what people are telling you, you get all upset and swear. So fucking what.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s all par for the course. People infer shit all the time, about other people, but when it is done to you, woohoo, look out, the vagina wars start.
The name calling, the insults, this is the same stuff that has people call others hate filled, so I guess the same rules apply here. You are an angry hate filled republican who doesn’t like it when his inability to express himself is pointed out to the world.
Sorry, the truth hurts. I like that. I’m going to have to use it more often Rainman.
Oh, by the way, you should have been able to figure out that I wasn’t thinking anyone was “stripping” me of free speech. That wasn’t where I was going with it… obviously.
Zeb, I am afraid you are indeed but an illiterate ass clown.
If you choose to be offended when people make implications about the administration, as if it represents you personally, that is your right.
However, as more and more comes out of the woodwork you are going to be more and more distressed. Why don’t you let the gonad that speaks for the president spread his lies and propaganda, you don’t need to do the same.
Your notion of “proof” is extremely childish Zeb. I’m sorry you choose to be so childish and then resort to characterizing other people as making personal attacks when they point it out.
You don’t need proof to have an opinion on the news that is publicly presented. You view it, you make an opinion, you state an opinion. People either agree with it or they don’t.
You disagree with it. Fine. However, the sad part is you engage in very foolish little games to try to discredit people, such as myself, that point out how hollow your arguements are. You have absolutely nothing to say except this…
“I view the same material and come to different conclusions than you Elk, I believe the President and the adminstration are paragons of virtue who have committed no wrong”.
Great. Good for you. Why don’t you simply state what you feel instead of continually making insidious little attacks and engaging in really stupid and annoying strawman arguments and attacks.
Learn to develop and original thought, you know, one that is yours, then express it. You’ll find that things go a lot smoother then.
Until then, be a blind cheerleader parrot squaking out right wing talking points as if they represent proof of some type, when all we are talking about is judgements and opinions based on what we can see in the media.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Oh, yes, I agree with your judgment. I think it’s terrible to make a racist reference but I entirely condone the flagrant use of the F word and calling people vaginas.
I wonder if rainjack was a dem who made references to illegal alien cockroaches and I was Bush supporting repub if you like a good lawyer would make a case for me?
Elk,
I don’t condone swearing or smoking, and only engage the former minimally myself, depending on the company, but on the sliding scale of my review I view them as less bad than using crack and using the “racist” or “Nazi” epithets. I hope my analogy wasn’t out of place…
[/quote]
I know you pride yourself on being the high powered intellect and it seems you like to indirectly make an inference. I would ask you and respect it that if you have something to say you would say it directly as a man should.
Oh, and it is your prerogative to like are dislike anything you choose to, much like it is mine.
As far as your comment about hijacking, I made a post with a link on my feelings regarding Rove. I also made a comparison as to my feelings regarding Rove and Bush which is what certain people made the choice to focus on.
They cast judgments on that and their judgments were responded to. This elicited many F-words and insults of being a loser from a certain individual.
His blatant anger and blaming were alluded to from his very own words and examples of which he has focused his blame were brought to light.
Now it seems like the mini repub smear machine here on T-Nation is hard at work to muffle any disagreement to their ultimate goal of agreeing with and patting each other on the back.
“Could you please be quite so the I can get back to posting 100 highly biased articles confirming my position”.
Wow more name calling from vroom! LOL Yes vroom we know that you can name call. You are a good little name caller…yep none better. Hopefully, not for much longer 
Now to the issue at hand: you completly avoided the main debate point! Now why is that? I want you to respond to what is written below. If you can’t that means that your “analogy” defense is worthless. Does this anger you vroom? Most things seem to anger you…
I suppose since Elk already fessed up your entire point is worthless anyway. I just couldn’t resist posting it once more however.
Call me old fashion but when one man calls another “dishonest” he ought to at least have proof.
[quote]Good morning vroom hope you had a good nights sleep
vroom wrote:
Zeb,
Perhaps you are being foolish on purpose. Bush was compared to a criminal, it is not the same as saying he is a criminal. Is that too complicated a concept for you, or are you arguing against what you wish Elk had said, because it is easier to defeat instead of what he actually said.
Oh my vroom, the personal attacks are coming fast and furious. LOL… Let me walk you through the many times that Elk has called the Bush administration dishonest. You might feel foolish after this and want to apologize. Oh that’s right I have never seen you apologize when proven wrong…pity.
“It pretty much sums up clearly my feelings on the whole matter. Nothing will happen to good ol Karl of course. This administration reminds me very much of the Teflon Don, John Gotti.”
This is the anaology to which you refer. But as I will point out there was so much more stated. Somehow you must have forgotten. Did you forget about the following, or did you simply leave it out to form a case which you knew was not accurate? Hmmm
"I have to interject that if we were to compare crimes in the whitehouse the one you showcase above pales in comparison to the infamous “Blow Job”.
The above states “Crimes in the White House.” Not an analogy but a charge! Of course there is no proof offered up. Can liberals simply call someone a criminal with no proof? Oh yes, Michael Moore sort of set the tone for that. Okay…
“No matter how inept, dishonest, or outright crooked, they are they march right through it. Hopefully like John Gotti they will one day have to face some kind of justice.”
The above clearly states another charge of dishonesty and being “crooked.” He then draws another analogy hoping that they (Bush and company) will face justice. However, another clear charge and still no proof! (how did you miss these vroom?)
“To me the comparison has to do with the Bush administration getting called upon numerous in my opinion dishonest actions and using their spin machine or smear tactics to deflect it or get out of it.”
Once again he charges that the Bush administration is guilty of “dishonest actions.” Again no proof is ever given! This is not an anaology vroom. No…
“Do I think that Bush and company have been dishonest and dishonorable? Yes, yes, I do.”
Well that’s pretty clear huh vroom? Elk sums it up nicely. accusing the President and his advisors of something illegal. Yet, once again offers no proof.
That was not an anaology either was it vroom? No guess not…
Is that too complicated a concept for you, or are you arguing against what you wish Elk had said, because it is easier to defeat instead of what he actually said.
You do understand the concepts of simile and metaphor right?
You do understand the concepts of being silly and meaningless? This post of yours is just that.
Don’t try to pretend you are that clueless, that you don’t realize he, Bush, was being compared to someone to illustrate a point, not to make a factual claim?
Who is clueless? Those things Elk said are indeed claims! They are charges of dishonestly and criminal behavior. And…they have no proof attatched to them. How could you miss those vroom (shaking head again). See what happens when you get all full of yourself and nasty…
Or is your whole useless argument a straw man, inventing a claim that wasn’t made so you could argue against it. There is no proof required to say that he is like a criminal to which no charges would stick.
Stop playing stupid and I’ll stop calling you that…
Yes, but there is proof required when you state flat out that Bush and company are dishonest. And that is exactly what Elk did!
Now on top of name calling and poor behavior in general, you are missing statements with in the debate. I do have a question for you: Did you leave Elks statements out on purpose or did you simply not see them? Which is it? And you can skip the apology. Simply respond to me without using personal attacks. That would be a nice change of pace
Either way, so much for your anaology defense.[/quote]
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
I know you pride yourself on being the high powered intellect and it seems you like to indirectly make an inference. I would ask you and respect it that if you have something to say you would say it directly as a man should. [/quote]
Elk,
I was trying to avoid moving further off topic. My opinion is that it was uncalled for for you to toss the “racist” comment into the mix on this thread.
Yup.
My comment about hijacking was directed to the fact that the original post was about reporters’ rights to not reveal sources under questioning by courts and prosecutors, but it quickly turned to a focus on events underlying the reporters’ refusal to answer concerning their sources. From their it went to whatever people wanted to say about Bush and Rove, and then to personal stuff – so I was merely trying to move it back to the original hijack topic, the affaire de Plame.
[quote]They cast judgments on that and their judgments were responded to. This elicited many F-words and insults of being a loser from a certain individual.
His blatant anger and blaming were alluded to from his very own words and examples of which he has focused his blame were brought to light. [/quote]
There’s no need to rehash the entire thing here. Let’s just get back to arguing about politics – it’s bad enough when the insults are directed at the politicians…
Disagree all you like. Just don’t toss out “racist”, “Nazi” or like insinuations.
[quote]
“Could you please be quite so the I can get back to posting 100 highly biased articles confirming my position”.[/quote]
You needn’t be quiet, but at least make posts relevant to the topic… But at least you’re enjoying the articles.
The resident right wingnuttery has resorted to the chewbacca defense which means that they conceed.
Peace out.
Zeb, your main debate point is “proof”. Perhaps you could avoid quoting the whole pile of tripe yet again in the future?
Your whole argument is worthless. It is crap you made up that has nothing to do with the subject at hand anyway.
That was and remains my response. Please spare the thread the repition of your nonsense and garbage yet again.
Elk has judged the news he has seen over the last years a certain way. He has his opinion. He doesn’t have to prove anything to tell you his opinion. You have a different opinion.
That is what this all comes down to. Why not recognize that it really is that simple and let it go at that? You are like an old dog chewing on a shoe, you just won’t let go.
No, that isn’t an insult, it’s an analogy that deals with how annoyingly tenacious you are when it comes to repeating useless things and finding ways to try to discredit someones opinion, as if that will ever happen.
Your only hope, when it comes to arguing an opinion, is to show someone how they made a mistake in judgement in their interpretation. This might allow them to make a new judgement on the facts as they know them and come to different conclusion.
Not surprisingly, this is never the tack you take. It’s always micharacterizations, complaints about discussion style, appeals to how many people agree with you, and other childish antics instead of good discussion.
No, that is not an attack either. Referring to how many PM’s you get is a ploy you have used repeatedly in the past. It is indeed childish to play popularity games of that type.
To quote Rainjack, the paragon of the forums, the truth hurts sometimes.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
I know you pride yourself on being the high powered intellect and it seems you like to indirectly make an inference. I would ask you and respect it that if you have something to say you would say it directly as a man should.
[/quote]
I forgot to point out in my earlier response that my reference to an analogy was just a joke based on your Gotti analogy.
Why isn’t the Friend of the Court brief filed by a couple of lawyers on behalf of 36 news agencies getting any airtime?
Could it be that the brief could exhonerate Rove and anyone else(including the reporters) accused of revealing the identity of CIA operatives?
I just find it odd that the press that is now tryng to get Rove nailed to a cross have conveniently forgotten thay they excused Rove for any wrongdoing - if there was any to begin with.
BB, thanks for the clarification.
My posts in my opinion (and we both know opinions are like assholes) are relevant to the discussion.
Zeb likes to attempt to define the tempo with his ridiculous scrutinizing that is not applied to guys on your side of the proverbial fence.
If he persist in these games the threads will continue to flow like they have. If he desists and accepts an opinion for what it is, then maybe the flow can be more to your liking and when somebody dislikes a certain post (much like I dislike yours and you mine) they can be ignored instead of making a mole hill into a mountain and raising rainjacks blood pressure (I worry about him).
Good day to you.