Quote:Everyone always says they want more fiscal responsibility, only conservatives ever have solutions. Want a cracker? <i></i>

Bah that suits me for not hitting refresh before replying. <i></i>

Ah yes, the age old strategy. Don't argue the actual issues, just keep saying the other guy is biased. Works best when you have lots of sheepish friends to go along with it. I suppose I should be gratified that I have won the argument, but really I feel cheated out of having to actually work for it. <
>
<
>
FYI this<
>
<
>
Quote:Everyone always says they want more fiscal responsibility, only conservatives ever have solutions.<
>
<
>
is referring to the fact that conservatives, real ones not GWB and the current crop of republicans, are supportive of efforts to eliminate government programs that aren't essential. Liberals tend to champion fiscal responsibility while being unwilling to drop any of the wasteful for-the-public-good programs that they think make society better. Basically they want big government but they want it to run efficiently, which is essentially impossible. Any time you put people in power without any truly responsive incentives to perform there will be waste. <
>
<
>
But anyway please return to patting each other on the back for your witty one liner replies and cutesy images. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

So what you're saying is, it's just a COINCIDENCE that you say the exact same things as people on conservative talk radio, which they derive from the rank and file of the republican party... Am I right?<
>
<
>
--Dar <
>DARWINAIN: E1V1M1 Since June 2003<i></i>

Quote:FYI this<
>
<
>
Quote:Everyone always says they want more fiscal responsibility, only conservatives ever have solutions.<
>
<
>
is referring to the fact that conservatives, real ones not GWB and the current crop of republicans, are supportive of efforts to eliminate government programs that aren't essential. Nice parroting - too bad it's not what most think fiscal responsibility is about. Even if it were, you seem to miss the important fact that "essential" programs vary from individual to individual. For many, non-essential programs include a military structured around the cold war. For others, non-essential programs include much of medicare. For others, it includes the labyrinthine EPA laws. Do yourself a favor, and look at the little picture of the tax dollar listed on the 1040 instructions, and see how much government waste is lost in the programs that are the favored targets from the bully pulpits of *both* sides. <
>
<
>
Constant listening to only one side of an issue has buried itself so far into your subconscious that you seem unable to realize that intelligent solutions have come from both sides of the political fence; somehow, you have actually fallen for the belief that only conservatives are smart, well-educated, wise and adept. As though somehow the rest of the human su
aces continue to wallow in the troughs they have created, only surviving through the dint of the hardworking, conservative geniuses who are essential to the worlds' survival. Be sure to ignore the fiscal and economic policies that have moved from the "liberal" side of the fence to the "conservative" side over the last 30 years and vice versa - that just muddies the waters! <
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

Funny, the republican party is pretty much behind Bush, yet conservatives, including those on talk radio, seem to be very much opposed to a lot of his policies. For example:<
>
<
>
On the way up to school here. Dad has Rush on. Rush is interesting. Rush doesn't like Harriet Miers. In fact a lot of conservatives don't think she is a good pick. There are some much more experienced, much less stealthy, constitutional originalists out there that would make wonderful judges. Miers just came out of nowhere. <
>
<
>
Maybe it's just me, but a lot of conservatives seem none too happy about Bush being a rubber stamp for congress's wasteful spending bills. Sure he says some token words on the subject of waste, then he goes ahead and signs them into law. That is not conservatism as we know it.<
>
<
>
Or border security. Bush's amnesty plan is horrid. I know I'm not the only conservative who thinks so. Illegals are a threat to out national security and our economic prosperity. It needs to stop, but Bush ain't helping. <
>
<
>
Those are the 3 biggest issues I can think of where Bush & Co run against the people who voted him into office. Sadly there was no better choice.<
>
<
>
I wouldn't say it is a coincidence that I agree with a lot of things said by other conservatives. I'd say that given a similar set of beliefs and values the chances are pretty good that we would end up in a similar spot as far as opinions are concerned. I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

Kylahn, you have already stated that the *only* source of political news you listen to is either shock radio or right-wing oriented sources. The sad thing here is that you are voluntarily subjecting yourself to the same kind of PR wash that so many complain about from places like China and North Korea. At least the commentators and the editorial staffs of these news sources have bothered to read and digest information from other sources. When someone says that you are parroting the catch phrases used by media sources like the radio, its because you have excluded any other input from any other source. Of course you agree with their world view - it's the only one that you are allowed to see. <i></i>

For the purpose of this argument, it doesn't matter what definition of essential we apply. Just assume essential is mostly things that both sides agree there have to be, some level of military, police agencies, federal oversight agencies to enforce some minimum level of fairness in business. The argument is unaffected by what those are as long as the basic premise remains unchanged, and that is that conservatives, as they are defined today, are for smaller government. <
>
<
>
Quote:As though somehow the rest of the human su
aces continue to wallow in the troughs they have created, only surviving through the dint of the hardworking, conservative geniuses who are essential to the worlds' survival<
>
<
>
Funny you should
ing that up, as I'm rather sure that communism proved very well how effective central economic planning is for creating a fair and prosperous society. Meanwhile, the USA, filled with greedy right wing capitalists, seems to have done pretty well for itself. Now of course you may argue that Russia just went too far and that a slightly less controlling government could work just fine, and although the situation of places like France, where socialism is killing the economy, would prove you wrong, you could still have that opinion. <
>
<
>
So yes, lots of humans are still suffering greatly due to work of left wing governments, while right wing governments like ours are essential to the prosperity of humanity. That's roughly how you put it I think. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Kylahn, you have already stated that the *only* source of political news you listen to is either shock radio or right-wing oriented sources<
>
<
>
Where have I stated this? I said this on the subject.<
>
<
>
Quote:FYI, I don't listen to much talk radio, I don't watch much cable news. My favorite conservative media source is William F Buckley's National Review, a magazine that is anything if not witty, thoughtful, and provocative. <
>
<
>
Really I get my news from a variety of sources. I still have comcast.net as my homepage and I do often click on stories from there that usually go to abc news. I also frequent enough message boards to get a lot of links to stories from other news sources that certainly aren't what you would consider right wing. I have a subscription to U.S. news and world report, and I find them to usually be decently unbiased. <
>
<
>
Basically, I don't know where the feck you got the idea that I only listen to/read conservative aligned news sources, even if ultimately I think that those sources would be more accurate. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:situation of places like France, where socialism is killing the economy<
>
<
>
Yep, France is suffering due to Socialism right alongside the economies of Sweden, Switzerland and Canada!<
>
<
>
--Dar <
>DARWINAIN: E1V1M1 Since June 2003<i></i>

<
>
Khylan, you statements are so completely one sided it's impossible to believe that you get a "balanced" diet of news. Your statements are 100% the talking points of the conservative pundits. <
>
<
>
You are further out there than I am on the left--that's saying a hell of a lot.<
>
<
>
And wtf, I'm pro-life! Can you give me any example of any stance you have that couldn't be considered conservative in our country? Somehow I doubt it. You have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the propaganda of the right, and it shows every time you post.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote:Funny you should
ing that up, as I'm rather sure that communism proved very well how effective central economic planning is for creating a fair and prosperous society. Meanwhile, the USA, filled with greedy right wing capitalists, seems to have done pretty well for itself. Now of course you may argue that Russia just went too far and that a slightly less controlling government could work just fine, and although the situation of places like France, where socialism is killing the economy, would prove you wrong, you could still have that opinion.Bizaare - really bizarre. It's clear that you don't even know what "left" and "right" policies are. For starters - apparently it will surprise you to find that capitalism is not right wing; in fact, in the original creation of left and right (see the second French revolution senate seating), the left-wingers were free trade capitalists (read up on Say). Oh dear. All those pundits, espousing policies that are actually neither left nor right wing, but claiming them as their own.<
>
<
>
Second - the Keynesian revolution has, to a fair extent, been left behind, as fiscal policies in the 70s and 80s ended up showing its shortcomings and false assumptions. Many of these philosophies were incorporated into both left and right policy, and the shakedown there is still going on, To claim that any of it belongs exclusively to the "left wingers" is posturing, egocentric and false.<
>
<
>
Third - Yes, it's true that in some leftist systems, central planning is at their core. But not all - and certainly not in the US. Then again, in some right-wing governments, dissenters are shot for making their viewpoints known, and their families are tortured. I wouldn't apply that to conservatives in the US government, either.<
>
<i></i>

Berrew, in the political spectrum, left means change, right means less change. As the world changes, things that used to be left can become right. Left and right are not set in stone. Socialism, looked at from the perspective of the present, is considered to reside pretty far left of center. Of course, strictly speaking, in a socialist country socialism can be viewed as being very much a centrist system. But I prefer to describe these things from the perspective of my own country's political system. Ultimately political labels are mainly there for the purpose of making discussion easier. Unfortunately the people of this board insist of picking apart the meanings of these words in order to muddy the water. Perhaps we should come up with some new words that lack the connotations of the existing ones. Like for example, I label everyone who I would call a liberal a "Fred". Now we are on the same page right? We know what we are talking about. The system that Freds favor is henceforth to be known as Frederalism. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

So Kylahn, what do you think about this investigation. You've stated it's bullshit to say this is ultimately about the war. What is it about? <
>
<
>
Does Fitzgerald have a partisan agenda? Does it upset you that Bush and his press secretary lied to us saying their boys weren't involved in this? <
>
<
>
Your first post in this thread is attacking Joe Wilson. Which seems to be the Republican gameplan because he's the only person they can attack right now. I agree that this is just a part of the overall discussion over why and how we went to war, but lets just leave that part out. In terms of this investigation, whether or not Joe Wilson is a partisan hack, a liar, or whatever else is irrelevant. Would you agree with that? <
>
<
>
It's not about Joe Wilson, but about the leaking of classified information by this administration in an attempt to smear a political problem. Or would you just call that hardball politics? <i></i>

Actually he seems to think that Valerie Plame (Wilson) wasn't undercover at all, according to his first post...<
>
<
>
Which shows how much he knows.<
>
<
>
--Dar <i></i>

Classified information was leaked several times to support the other side of the argument. It is most certainly hardball politics.<
>
<
>
I won't place any sort of label on Wilson, because I think his position in the matter was one of policy not politics, but remember the whole thing started as an internal investigation to find out what he was doing there, who sent him, and why. It was not a planned investigation, and it is fishy that his wife cut and appoved the orders for it. I find it difficult to believe that they had no other intelligence assets to tap in the region. Especially one in which it is supremely easy to develop them due to rampant corruption.<
>
<
>
The leak could have either slipped as a result, or was timed to discredit him. In either case, someone will get burned for it.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

ya rly <
>
<
>
<
>
Gnome - Dark Iron - Knight of Arcadia<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:It was not a planned investigation, and it is fishy that his wife cut and appoved the orders for it. That's not what happened. Read page 39 of the Senate Intelligence Report. His wife suggested his name, but the decision to send him and define his tasks were made by her superiors. He was already heading there on other business, and she suggested that, while in Niger, he could check out a few things since he had assisted the CIA previously. <
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

Whoops, I said "is" instead of "was". Sorry I meant the investigation into the report itself which was a quick look and, to be honest, damage control.<
>
<
>
The comments by White House staff indicated that they did not know about the planning in place, just who nominated Wilson.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote:The comments by White House staff indicated that they did not know about the planning in place, just who nominated WilsonWhich excused their decision to "out" a CIA operative - how? You know, the FBI works for the President - he can, like, find out these things ...<
>
<i></i>

Heh. FBI, CIA, whatever. Those, y'know, sikkrit folks! Though honestly, the CIA could potentially have turned around and said that there were classified elements in his selection, and they would need to obtain "need to know" access, and they would still have been in the wrong, even though they didn't have the full background. Not that such secrecy was needed in this case. <i></i>

Don't forget that Wilson was a high level diplomat with extensive experience working in Baghdad. In fact, he was the highest ranking person in left in Baghdad when Iraq invaded Kuwait. So I think it is fair to say that he wasn't just some random guy picked to investigate Iraqi weapons purchases. <i></i>

Yes, they work for the President and yes he cannot always find those things out in a timely fashion because of the restrictions mentioned.<
>
<
>
As important as security is, within an organization it is not played to the letter. Things are fast and loose, as bad as that sounds. So when this report comes out, the five w's are asked. All it would have taken was someone saying that he was nominated by his wife, knowing nothing else. And, because they were on the defensive over the content, that is seen as a magic bullet to deflate it.<
>
<
>
Anyway, who is making excuses? I think just two days ago I said let the chopping begin. I'm saying that mistake or no, it is something that people can and should be prosecuted over; But it didn't necessarily have to be part of a vast [cliche] conspiracy. Passing information without regard to source or sensitivity has become very popular in the last five or six years. This is little fish compared to some in the past, but at least they're acting on it. Too many people are given passes on that crap.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote:Anyway, who is making excuses? I think just two days ago I said let the chopping beginYou say, "Let the chopping begin" - then you water it down by making excuses for those that release sensitive information: "it is fishy that his wife cut and approved the orders for it. I find it difficult to believe that they had no other intelligence assets to tap in the region." This is not their opinion - it's yours, and it shows that you are trying to let us all empathize with the poor staffers, caught in a web of left-wing intrigue (left-wing intrigue has always been a real issue in the CIA). The fact that your opinion has no basis in fact doesn't help matters. <
>
<
>
In fact, your statement, if it can be applied to those in question, proves my earlier points exactly. Pres. Bush has wild dogs loose in his staff that make choices like this based on insufficient information; skirting the law (at the very least) to "punish" those who dare oppose their viewpoint. His vision of a kindler more gentler White House, with strong Christian morals, does not exist once folks walk out of their Bible study groups. Either Bush is the consummate politician, who actually doesn't believe in these principles and is merely using them as leverage (doubtful), or he is an ineffective manager, and unable to provide the proper guidance and direction for his staff. I am unimpressed either way.<
>
<i></i>

Hi, the right-wing conspiracy to knowingly and intentionally divulge her identity to discredit him is also conjecture without basis. That is my point. I don't believe that side, nor do I believe the other because I am inclined to neither one.<
>
<
>
No empathy or dillution is required, but neither is crucifixion based on less than all the facts. Investigation of partisan hijinks, real or imagined, is going to lead to a different result than investigation based on the culmination of a lack of regard for the information those staffers have on hand. That is the problem.<
>
<
>
Honestly, they are either evil masterminds or they are not. If it were a planned attack, what on earth is the point of leaving a trail right back to their doorstep when they knew they did something highly illegal? That sort of work is what aides are for, but here we are hearing about in person conversations and telephone calls. I'd like to think they are smarter than that, even if most would say their boss is not.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote:Hi, the right-wing conspiracy to knowingly and intentionally divulge her identity to discredit him is also conjecture without basis. That is my point. I don't believe that side, nor do I believe the other because I am inclined to neither one.What right wing conspiracy? You mean the deliberate actions of several staffers, where Mr. Wilson's wife was uncovered in the middle of a discussion of his activities in regards to the CIA? This is not just conjecture - it is testimony agreed on by both sides. The motives behind such a disclosure are subject to conjecture, but the actual actions really aren't. And no one has set this up to be a "conspiracy" - merely the actions of a few individuals. Quote:No empathy or dillution is required, but neither is crucifixion based on less than all the facts.If you are referring to conviction in a court of law, than that's certainly the case. Then again, your incorrect earlier statements, even if verified, would have little relevence to such a trial. Explain to me why you bothered to include those opinions of yours, if it wasn't to offer empathy?Quote:Honestly, they are either evil masterminds or they are not.That's a useless statement. "Either something is true or it is false". No kidding! Thanks for that
eakthrough. It's also completely irrelevent. I am certainly not claiming that anyone is an "evil mastermind" - but there an be little doubt that Rove is a vindictive partisan tool. Somehow you fail to see that it doesn't take a cabal of evil masterminds to make Bush ineffective, or to
eak the law - just a couple of "loose cannons" - meaning, staff members who clearly have no issues skirting the edges of legality in order to make their side "win". Unless, of course, you think that Rove is naive enough to believe that discussing internal CIA matters to a reporter is something that people with access to classified information should do on a regular basis. <i></i>

Several people acting together to commit a crime is one of the definitions of a conspiracy.<
>
<
>
Right now we know who was involved (roughly), why it happened (roughly), and what occurred as a result. Did they agree to being guilty, or confirm the witness accounts and those of the persons involved?<
>
<
>
I was not offering empathy, I was suggesting an alternative that neither side has or probably will em
ace. That the agent was outed, it was a fuckup
ought about by shitty policy and damage control to defend an unpopular one, and the guilty parties should be on trial for it.<
>
<
>
If you continued to read you would see the point of the mastermind statement. If it were a planned attack, prosecuted with the knowledge that it involved outing a CIA operative, then why did they leave a yellow
ick road to their cocks in a chopping block? Unless Rove is naive of that too.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

We prettymuch know what happened, but are there any established facts regarding motive?<
>
<
>
It seems to me that there is so much speculation going on that the truth will never live up to the hype. Whether this ends up taking out the VP plus others, or turns out to be something far less than a massive conspiracy, a great many people are going to cry foul. This is just another example of the court of public opinion run amock. Facts are irrelevant while perception becomes the reality. It's what I hate the most about the media and the agents that propogate it. Ever since Watergate, the media has been looking for the next big corruption story. But it's more about sensationalism than actual fact finding these days. Just ask CBS News. <
>
<
>
I'm not saying politicians and their political operatives are pure as the driven snow either. Far from it. From my perspective, it's very believable that this whole mess is a massive conspiracy that needs an equally massive cleanup effort. But it's also very believable that it is just a case of negligence that one or two people may rightfully get canned for. I don't know the truth. And frankly I'm not sure I really care at this point. At worst what is it saying? That politicians are corrupt? Oh there's a news flash.<
>
Only in the world of Azeroth...<
><
><
><
>A Muaadeb of Lanys T'Vyl Creation<i></i>

Quote: Several people acting together to commit a crime is one of the definitions of a conspiracyYup, that's my definition. And nowhere did I say or suggest that anyone worked in concert to out Valerie Plume. Just that two or more members of the Executive staff released information about her. As for the rest of the Evil Mastermind bit - read material near the beginning of this post. The bar for criminal liability in regards to this is set quite high. CD wrote a post showing that Rove's phone call was very nicely skirting the line of legality - a stroke of Evil Genius at work! (around post 160ish). Unless there is documentation showing that the release of the information was deliberate, and performed knowing that she was covert, conviction is difficult at best. So *if* you subscribe to the Evil Mastermind theory, then these actions could fit the bill.<
>
<
>
Oddly enough, while I dug for CD's post I noted in passing that you voiced the same opinions about Wilson's trip back around post 100, and I offered the senate report to you way back then, too. If you don't want to be called out on stuff regarding this issue, it really is in your best interest to read that document. Besides, you might learn something about the overall issue (Intelligence failures) that you didn't know before. I certainly did.<
>
<
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

Yes, and around that time no one really knew the whole story. I stated no absolute, just a possibility and then said we didn't even have half the story yet.<
>
<
>
I read the report around the same time everyone else did. And I had also hoped that it was clear that I was referring to the administration's internal investigation, the one that led to the outing in the first place. The circumstances they were aware of at the time caused suspicion, but they should have halted when they learned who sent him. Instead they ran with juicy gossip.<
>
<
>
Somehow the reporter received enough information to tie his wife to him, and her to the CIA so I'd be surprised if they don't get really close to a conviction. In a perfect world they'd get one. /shrug<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

New York Times reporting Libby to be indicted, but not Rove.<
>
<
>
Quote:Associates of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, expected an indictment on Friday charging him with making false statements to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak inquiry, lawyers in the case said Thursday.<
>
<
>
Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people
iefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday. <i></i>

One thing about these slimey white
ead Republican bastards in D.C. One of those pussies is going to cave-in, and when they do, its going to be a domino effect just like when that weasel John Dean started ratting on everybody in the Nixon administration. <i></i>

True. And I expect this will be one of a number of indictments.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Like I said earlier in the thread, the Presidential pardons will be flying left and right when Bush is leaving office. Regardless of all the things Bush may or may not be, he is fiercely loyal. <i></i>

Yep.<
>
<
>
But if anyone rats for a lesser charge, they won't get pardoned. Bush also severely punishes disloyalty. He'll throw them under the bus.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote: Like I said earlier in the thread, the Presidential pardons will be flying left and right when Bush is leaving office. Regardless of all the things Bush may or may not be, he is fiercely loyal.<
>
<
>
I would expect nothing less. Clinton did the same thing when he left office too. Apparently all the political favors that can't be acknowledged in the daylight are saved for the last week in office 8P. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Libby indcited<
>
<
>
Quote:Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was indicted today by a grand jury on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury in the CIA leak probe. The indictments are the first in a nearly two-year investigation into the public unmasking of an undercover CIA operative. <i></i>

You can read indictments here <i></i>

Interesting how Rove was, until yesterday, pretty much a shoo-in for an indictment.<
>
<
>
And now, looks like he's going to walk.<
>
<
>
Is it coincidental that this happens just a day after Miers went sacrificial and withdrew her nomination for the supreme court? I don't think so. Miers was not well liked by many, many conservatives. I have no doubt in my mind that her withdrawing from consideration was the blood sacrifice that needed to be paid to save Roves ass. Libbey was Cheney's man. Rove was Dubbya's. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one needed to be saved. <i></i>

<
>
<
>
When you have as much corruption in your ranks as this administration, everything is a cooincidence.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

I don't think Miers was important enough for that, but it's possible.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

It's not Miers, but the position.<
>
<
>
Anyone being offered up for the supreme court is VERY important. <i></i>

Quote:When you have as much corruption in your ranks as this administration, everything is a cooincidence.<
>
<
>
When you have as much corruption in your ranks as the US EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS, everything is a cooincidence. <i></i>

coincidence <i></i>

Yes, this definitely is the most corrupt administration in the last 10 years not counting the Clinton administration. <
>
<
>
-Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

There wasn't this much 'old boy network' bullshit going on in the Clinton years. Don't even try comparing the two.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote: Yes, this definitely is the most corrupt administration in the last 10 years not counting the Clinton administration. <
>
<
>
<
>
hahahaha you have got to be kidding. This from the guy that says he gets his news from a "variety" of sources .<
>
<
>
You're completely out of touch with reality, sir. Call the white coats, they can help you.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Well there's no use arguing with you, because inevitably if I come to a conclusion you disagree with you'll just respond by telling me that my conclusion is wrong simply by virtue of it being aligned with that opposing opinion. <
>
<
>
Perhaps you should try actually arguing substance rather than just calling people partisan. Where a particular opinion falls in the political spectrum has absolutely no bearing on whether it is factually and logically well supported. For example, a green party representitive could say that 4 + 4 = 17, while a grand dragon of the KKK could say that he stood for 4+4 equaling 8. He would be right in that respect wouldn't he?<
>
<
>
Honestly I took it for granted that people wouldn't forget all the corruption of the clinton era. Sadly a significant number of people on this board are so hopelessly adrift in left wing la-la land that such things just fall into the memory hole, and the typical response to people not in line with their opinion is argumentum ad populum. "Gosh you are THAT dumb? Man EVERYONE knows that what I say is right. You are way out there!" -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

<
>
<
>
You know, you aren't the only conservative voice on these boards. Ever notice that you are the only one I jump on these last few days?<
>
<
>
Perhaps you should look at your posts, compare them to those around you, and try and decipher why this is the case. Of course, if you are too far gone to recognize the general extremism in *most* of your posts, this little exercise won't help.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Ever stop to think maybe what I'm saying isn't extreme as far as a lot of people are concerned? Or what if I am extreme, and what if I am also right? <
>
<
>
Basically it comes down to this. Attack my arguments for factual or logical errors. When it comes down to facts people are bound to disagree, but it should be entirely possible to agree on the logical format of the argument. The reason facts are so easily disputable is because none of us can claim to be first person eyewitnesses to even a tiny sliver of what we argue over. We all get the majority of our information from other people we assume to be reasonably well informed on the topic. <
>
<
>
Now I don't think I am even close to being extremist. Extremists are people like the KKK, or the Muslim jihadists. People who advocate major sweeping reversions back to a long past period in history. -Lord Yunama Dendrobatis: 65 (+6) Lord Protector <Bloodsong> - Lanys T'Vyl<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Perhaps you should try actually arguing substance rather than just calling people partisan.<
>
<
>
Yeah perhaps you should. Perhaps you should also try supporting your arguments too. People responded to you previously in this thread, asking you questions and calling your statements into question. You've ignored it. They addressed the issues, but that required thought. So you avoided it.<
>
<
>
You've done the same thing in another thread where I've asked you to support your thoughts there too.<
>
<
>
And you really wonder why people are dismissive of you at this point, or ignoring you?
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:Perhaps you should try actually arguing substance rather than just calling people partisan.<
>
<
>
Yeah, maybe heed your own advice. I don't see many people basing their arguments around the fact that you're a neo-conservative whackjob, but you're pretty quick to call someone a dirty liberal, or left-winger in "la la land."<
>
<
>
When you make Arkayn look like Ghandi, perhaps its time to re-evaluate just where on the spectrum you really fall.<
>
<
>
--Dar <
>DARWINAIN: E1V1M1 Since June 2003<i></i>

Dar, Arkayn *is* Ghandi. Didn't you see the Page 8, about 2 years ago?<
>
<
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

I'm
eaking these out again.<
>
<
>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

According to the Washington Post<
>
<
>
Quote:Late Friday, three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified Rove as Official A.<
>
<
>
After reading the indictment it seemed pretty obvious to me that Rove was Official A.<
>
<
>
By all accounts Libby is a very smart man, so it begs the question. What the fuck was he thinking? Did he really thing he was going to get away with this? Did he think reporters would corroborate his story? Or did he think they just wouldn't cooperate?<
>
<
>
Or, as many have speculated, was it worth it to protect whomever/whatever he was protecting? Some say this indictment is the end of it and now we can move on. I agree with those who say, not by a longshot. This is just another beginning.<
>
<
>
Of course he's innocent until proven guilty, but the record is there. And it shows Libby actively sought out information about Wilson and his wife well before she was outed by Novak, and then went on to tell the grand jury he didn't know anything about it. That he learned it from reporters. Seems like a slam dunk to me. <i></i>

Also, watching the Fitzgerald press conference, wow. Is this guy not impressive as hell? I know I thought so. <i></i>

After listening to NPR this afternoon, I understand why it took 2 years and a buttload of interviews and testimony. He was trying to trace back to just where the rumor got started, and it was with Libby. Not only did divulge a CIA operative, but lied about it under oath a couple of times.<
>
<
>
But here is the thing. There really is no smoking gun. This guy is going to have to convince a jury of about 38 degrees of seperation of Dickless Cheney. Good luck. Can you imagine the charts this guy will have in court trying to explain how it all leads back to Libby?<
>
<
>
Unless he gets Libby to cop to a plea, he may not get a conviction. <i></i>

You mean a conviction of Cheney? Because the counts against Libby seem pretty clear cut. No need for complicated charts to show Libby said this. The evidence says this. <i></i>