You don't know who leaked the story. You don't even know that it came from the White House.
But we can narrow it down to a very small group of people. it would have to be someone worthy of the label senior (which is a very specific term in political journalism) and it actually is someone from the white house, as pointed out by the source (probably tenet) in the Post.
So if you look at the people worthy of the title 'senior white house official' or even 'senior admin official' it's clear that at least one of the people was Rove. The other one is a mystery to me.
See, when you talk about it in a legal sense, you are always going to have ways of talking your way into a fantasy land where despite the clearly obvious facts, the opposite is true. But when you deal with the facts, it is obvious what the situation is. Just like it was with the WMD. This whole BS where folks try to pretend the situation is more ambiguous than it really is got us into Iraq. It was BS then and it's BS now.
Well I guess Josh Marshall's theory that it's Tenet makes the most sense. He could be pissed because 1) it's a CIA person they're talking about, and 2) the administration hasn't treated him very well in the past.
My point was that I could no better job of proving the folks posting here look ridiculous than they themselves are doing.
Besides why pick a fight when the people here do so enjoy arguing into the air. Half the posts aren't even to anyone, just screaming about someone did something bad and darn it, it is time for revenge for Clinton.
It's more fun to watch a dog chase it's tail than to argue with it that it shouldn't be a dog. Likewise it's more fun to watch blood thirsty irrational, politically sold out leftist partisans make boobs of themselves than to argue with them as to why they shouldn't be that which they clearly demonstrate.
As for this, I assure you that based off what I have read both from the links here and just around, I'm not worried about it.
Nick
If it does prove out I'm sure we won't be hearing from you for awhile
Politcally sold? You should try listening to yourself sometime.
And you know maybe it is revenge time for Clinton. I got so tired of hearing about that incident way after it was over by conservatives who couldn't come up with anything better. Attempting to turn it into their " Watergate ". At the same time I was reminded of republican presidents who have done far worse. And guess what? What they did actually had something to do with their job ( I'm talking about the sex part which they seemed to focus on so much not the lying to the american public ).
One thing's for sure. We went to war on a false premise. There are no WOMD. There was no big threat. Also it cost a truckload of money. our money.
The other thing is Bush's mismanagement of our economy. Yup, he's really got some record breakers there. Also just because it looks like things are improving doesn't mean he couldn't do the same thing to us again ( 87 billion ).
Look Bush is bad for the democrats, he's bad for the republicans. He's bad for you and me. If something happens to bring the truth out into the light on this......yeah you bet I'll be jumping for joy!
What's wrong with a little revenge ( if it involves the truth )?
Well I guess Josh Marshall's theory that it's Tenet makes the most sense. He could be pissed because 1) it's a CIA person they're talking about, and 2) the administration hasn't treated him very well in the past.
And then there's the other part: what other 'senior administration official' could possibly have been the source? Go down the list and test it on each one. Maybe I'm forgetting one, so if there is someone that can point out another possibility, let's hear it.
...Bob Novak is is now saying that his source says that Valerie Plame was an "analyst" and not an "operative" at the CIA. Joe Wilson remembers their conversation in July a bit differently.
According to what Wilson told TPM early Monday evening, when Novak first contacted him in July, he told him that he had a CIA source that told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a "CIA operative." ...
So today is/might/ be the only day in his life that Bob claims she was an "analyst" to cover his ass.Washinton Post said "operative". So basically its looking more and more like she was an "operative".
I'm trying to look at the brright side of all this.. Oh yeah. At least he did not accuse her of possibly be a "glorified secretary' like the stone age republican congressman kinston did on crossfire today...
(BRussell, maybe tenet "took a bullet" for the team then, knowing full well he was going to roast JUNIOR's chestnut's on an open fire come christmas...)
We've always thought about this in the context of what is compromised in terms of national security. What operations? What agents? What networks that have been put into place during her career.That was the focus of our thinking. I will tell you that increasingly people are asking that question.
All I can say is that I'm glad Nowak said what he said. It would be much worse if the leak happened (as it supposedly did 6 times?) and it wasn't as public as it is. If that information had gotten out through less publicized means it could have gotten into the hands of someone that could have caused some damage. Instead, everyone knows about the leak so the damage is done and can do no more.
...Bob Novak is is now saying that his source says that Valerie Plame was an "analyst" and not an "operative" at the CIA. Joe Wilson remembers their conversation in July a bit differently.
According to what Wilson told TPM early Monday evening, when Novak first contacted him in July, he told him that he had a CIA source that told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a "CIA operative." ...
So today is/might/ be the only day in his life that Bob claims she was an "analyst" to cover his ass.Washinton Post said "operative". So basically its looking more and more like she was an "operative".
I'm trying to look at the brright side of all this.. Oh yeah. At least he did not accuse her of possibly be a "glorified secretary' like the stone age republican congressman kinston did on crossfire today...
(BRussell, maybe tenet "took a bullet" for the team then, knowing full well he was going to roast JUNIOR's chestnut's on an open fire come christmas...)
There's definitely a rift between the White House and it's intelligence agencies... and you really don't want to f@ck with those guys. That's when leaks starting coming out about the stuff they have on you.
How pissed would you be if you're Plame's boss and her cover and her subordinates covers have been blown? Nevermind the years of work that goes into creating sources around the world. Maybe very little harm was done... but the CIA doesn't like when people screw with them.
Ê Ê Ê ÊCIA lawyers sent the Justice Department an informal notice of the alleged leak in July, two senior officials told NBC News on Monday.
Ê Ê Ê ÊAlthough that letter, which was not signed by CIA Director George Tenet, was not a formal request for an investigation, the Justice Department could have opened one at that point, lawyers said. It remained unclear whether it did so.
Ê Ê Ê ÊCIA lawyers followed up the notification this month by answering 11 questions from the Justice Department, affirming that the womanÕs identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak, the senior officials said.
Ê Ê Ê ÊThe CIA response to the questions, which is itself classified, said there were grounds for a criminal investigation, the sources said.
My point was that I could no better job of proving the folks posting here look ridiculous than they themselves are doing.
Besides why pick a fight when the people here do so enjoy arguing into the air. Half the posts aren't even to anyone, just screaming about someone did something bad and darn it, it is time for revenge for Clinton.
It's more fun to watch a dog chase it's tail than to argue with it that it shouldn't be a dog. Likewise it's more fun to watch blood thirsty irrational, politically sold out leftist partisans make boobs of themselves than to argue with them as to why they shouldn't be that which they clearly demonstrate.
As for this, I assure you that based off what I have read both from the links here and just around, I'm not worried about it.
Nick
WE CORNERED HIM, again.
Remember, trumptman, the last time you tried arguing without anything on your side? I'm glad the feelings of the right are on the table now. We are "blood thirsty irrational, politically sold out leftist partisans make boobs of themselves ." Wow. Way to contribute, buddy. (as you would invariably say in any one of your 10,000 threads).
Regardless, I'm sure those on the right are angry that senior administration officials have let them down- as they have let down an entire nation regardless of political affiliation. Right?
Remember, trumptman, the last time you tried arguing without anything on your side? I'm glad the feelings of the right are on the table now. We are "blood thirsty irrational, politically sold out leftist partisans make boobs of themselves ." Wow. Way to contribute, buddy. (as you would invariably say in any one of your 10,000 threads).
Regardless, I'm sure those on the right are angry that senior administration officials have let them down- as they have let down an entire nation regardless of political affiliation. Right?
Yes, Shawn except for you forget an important point. I don't call you out into discussions. I don't post and say "Hey Shawn take a shot at this and here's what you are if you don't or haven't."
Or perhaps you have forgotten this little post...
Quote:
(Scott, SDW, BR, Trumptman....if you all try to spin this, you WILL NOT WIN.)
Shawn, are you playing with those dolls again? Have you been taking the Mr. Trumptman doll and making him argue with you when all the children won't play with you again?
Cornered... last time I argued with nothing on my side. I would love to see that one.
I didn't try to spin this. There hasn't been anything "contributed" by anyone to argue/spin. All we have is an inquiry for information that could lead to a possible investigation by the Department of Justice.
Does that mean Bush, Rove or anyone else is innocent? I would assume so until proven otherwise but heck they could be guilty. Nothing is impossible(though improbable) and at this point we pretty much know nothing. It is all conspiracy theories.
So why argue conspiracy theories with folks who clearly want Bush gone no matter what the cost? I mean there are folks here basically asking whether we should put his head on a wooden stick or on the wrought iron gates of the White House. Let them have their fun. Why should I spoil it?
Let's give Shawn some homework. As a lawyer he should always be able to argue both sides of a case. What fine legal reasoning would you deploy against these fine arguments?
Quote:
Karl Rove and company outed the wife/ cia agent of the guy that blew the whistle on Junior's 16 word lie. He could have gotten her KILLED~! This is about a BILLION times more treasonous then ANYTHING Clinton ever did.Let's take bets as to how long AG "don't show me boobs" Ashcroft blocks the justice dept from taking action...
Or perhaps this...
Quote:
If Rove is found guilty, why not give him the chair? Ashcroft & Bush seem to love it.
How about this deductive piece..
Quote:
Egg-sactlly...
And since we will find K-A-R-L was behind this, (and we all know that K-A-R-L is 50% of Junior's gray matter (cheney being the other 50%)) this is big since its literaly a "heartbeat' away from the president....
Of course Junior can claim ignorance.....
Which the American public WOULD BUY IN A SECOND!
Wow deep...
Quote:
Well boys it takes a really boldly rotten president to get their attention. The last time this happened it was with Nixon, Watergate, and Vietnam. The sleeping masses only wake up when it becomes super obvious that their leader is a crook and is threatening their way of life.
more...
Quote:
All of a sudden in an unexpected development Bush develops altzheimers and can't remember a thing.
And...
Quote:
Junior gonna get a spankin next time he's in Kennebunkport...
Yes I haven't argued, but rather have sat back and enjoyed the rabid replies to the initial post. That and the "exclusives" coming from a writers blog page which are "factual evidence" of wrong doing.
Criticize what I said if you can. Otherwise don't quote me.
Thanks.
So you want to turn this into a pro/anti-death penalty thread? I know you can't be serious because from what I recall you don't even support the death penalty.
So you prove my point. It is all just hot air. How can I criticize you for claiming Rove should get the death penalty when you don't support the dealth penalty?
Ladies and gentleman, for your viewing pleasure... bunge refuted by... bunge....
Quote:
But as things stand, I have to say someone must be ignorant or stupid to support it. I mean no offense, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just haven't heard a good defense of the death penalty in light of the corrupt* justice systems.
And this one...
Quote:
One thought is that when the death penalty exists, someone will be more willing to kill to avoid being caught. This phenomonon now exists in California with the three strikes law. They're finding that a criminal with two strikes is more likely to do whatever it takes to avoid getting caught with the third strike since they have nothing to lose.
I mean as bunge-ling and incapable as the government is in Illinois with death penalty convictions, how could we ever trust them with a errorless defense against a presidental advisor like Rove?
So you want to turn this into a pro/anti-death penalty thread? I know you can't be serious because from what I recall you don't even support the death penalty.
So you prove my point. It is all just hot air. How can I criticize you for claiming Rove should get the death penalty when you don't support the dealth penalty?
Ladies and gentleman, for your viewing pleasure... bunge refuted by... bunge....
And this one...
I mean as bunge-ling and incapable as the government is in Illinois with death penalty convictions, how could we ever trust them with a errorless defense against a presidental advisor like Rove?
Love ya, mean it...
Nick
Why do you continue to lie? Why can't you just try to be honest for one discussion?
I've said many times I don't support it, but if we are going to have it then I want it used equitably. That means death to any cop caught taking a bribe. Death to the treasonous politicians. Not just death to poor black people. I've said this in other threads but you choose to ignore it (lie) to try and prove a point that you know is incorrect.
Are you done lying yet?
It's common practice to include a link to a quote so others can go and research in context things that people quote here.
The Nation also published an article on this scandal a few weeks back. Strange how slow the regular media is on to uptake. But mind, Watergate started subtlely, as a small article in the unnoticed backwaters of the newpapers.
According to the article, Karl Rove's real name is Karl Roverer (umlaut over the 'o'). He has dual U.S.-German citizenship, and an an aside, his grandfather was a partner in the Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurbüro AG company that built the Dachenau Nazi concentration camp. (He's not the only grandad of Bush admin. folks who supported N?z? Germany....). The acorn never falls far from the tree.
Why do you continue to lie? Why can't you just try to be honest for one discussion?
I've said many times I don't support it, but if we are going to have it then I want it used equitably. That means death to any cop caught taking a bribe. Death to the treasonous politicians. Not just death to poor black people. I've said this in other threads but you choose to ignore it (lie) to try and prove a point that you know is incorrect.
Are you done lying yet?
It's common practice to include a link to a quote so others can go and research in context things that people quote here.
You are amazing in your denseness. You said to criticize my quote of you. I said I couldn't because it wasn't a true characterization of what you believe, even though it was typed by you. I said you don't support the death penalty.
You then say, "you lie" and that you don't support the death penalty.
How is it a lie to say you wouldn't really support the death penalty for Rove for leaking information about an unharmed CIA agent, (not even rape, murder or something else of that nature) when you say yourself that you don't support the death penalty.
Nevermind, as I mentioned, dog's chasing their tails. I should have known better.....Now I'm a LIAR for saying you don't support the death penalty when you admit you don't support it... classic....
Likewise you say that it is applied unevenly. I even said how could you trust the government to make a case strong enough to convict Rove when as you claim yourself, they can only seem to convict poor black folks. You claim it is a lie of omission because you would endorse two wrongs in an attempt to make a right. If anything I truthfully presented your position because you DON'T support the death penalty. If I were going to lie about you, I would distort the two wrongs position into an attempt to portray you as a death penalty supporter of which you are not.
As for the links, you can do the search yourself. User name, bunge, keywords death penalty. You and Shawn should both get off your "guilt by omission" kick. Everyone here has access to the search function, knows your handle, and can type the words death penalty. Nothing is being kept from anyone. If you want me to link to you while using you to refute you, that is your problem and you can link to yourself if you want.(say that three times fast)
Comments
Originally posted by OBJRA10
You don't know who leaked the story. You don't even know that it came from the White House.
But we can narrow it down to a very small group of people. it would have to be someone worthy of the label senior (which is a very specific term in political journalism) and it actually is someone from the white house, as pointed out by the source (probably tenet) in the Post.
So if you look at the people worthy of the title 'senior white house official' or even 'senior admin official' it's clear that at least one of the people was Rove. The other one is a mystery to me.
See, when you talk about it in a legal sense, you are always going to have ways of talking your way into a fantasy land where despite the clearly obvious facts, the opposite is true. But when you deal with the facts, it is obvious what the situation is. Just like it was with the WMD. This whole BS where folks try to pretend the situation is more ambiguous than it really is got us into Iraq. It was BS then and it's BS now.
Originally posted by trumptman
My point was that I could no better job of proving the folks posting here look ridiculous than they themselves are doing.
Besides why pick a fight when the people here do so enjoy arguing into the air. Half the posts aren't even to anyone, just screaming about someone did something bad and darn it, it is time for revenge for Clinton.
It's more fun to watch a dog chase it's tail than to argue with it that it shouldn't be a dog. Likewise it's more fun to watch blood thirsty irrational, politically sold out leftist partisans make boobs of themselves than to argue with them as to why they shouldn't be that which they clearly demonstrate.
As for this, I assure you that based off what I have read both from the links here and just around, I'm not worried about it.
Nick
If it does prove out I'm sure we won't be hearing from you for awhile
Politcally sold? You should try listening to yourself sometime.
And you know maybe it is revenge time for Clinton. I got so tired of hearing about that incident way after it was over by conservatives who couldn't come up with anything better. Attempting to turn it into their " Watergate ". At the same time I was reminded of republican presidents who have done far worse. And guess what? What they did actually had something to do with their job ( I'm talking about the sex part which they seemed to focus on so much not the lying to the american public ).
One thing's for sure. We went to war on a false premise. There are no WOMD. There was no big threat. Also it cost a truckload of money. our money.
The other thing is Bush's mismanagement of our economy. Yup, he's really got some record breakers there. Also just because it looks like things are improving doesn't mean he couldn't do the same thing to us again ( 87 billion ).
Look Bush is bad for the democrats, he's bad for the republicans. He's bad for you and me. If something happens to bring the truth out into the light on this......yeah you bet I'll be jumping for joy!
What's wrong with a little revenge ( if it involves the truth )?
Originally posted by BRussell
Well I guess Josh Marshall's theory that it's Tenet makes the most sense. He could be pissed because 1) it's a CIA person they're talking about, and 2) the administration hasn't treated him very well in the past.
And then there's the other part: what other 'senior administration official' could possibly have been the source? Go down the list and test it on each one. Maybe I'm forgetting one, so if there is someone that can point out another possibility, let's hear it.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
...Bob Novak is is now saying that his source says that Valerie Plame was an "analyst" and not an "operative" at the CIA. Joe Wilson remembers their conversation in July a bit differently.
According to what Wilson told TPM early Monday evening, when Novak first contacted him in July, he told him that he had a CIA source that told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a "CIA operative." ...
So today is/might/ be the only day in his life that Bob claims she was an "analyst" to cover his ass.Washinton Post said "operative". So basically its looking more and more like she was an "operative".
I'm trying to look at the brright side of all this.. Oh yeah. At least he did not accuse her of possibly be a "glorified secretary' like the stone age republican congressman kinston did on crossfire today...
(BRussell, maybe tenet "took a bullet" for the team then, knowing full well he was going to roast JUNIOR's chestnut's on an open fire come christmas...)
We've always thought about this in the context of what is compromised in terms of national security. What operations? What agents? What networks that have been put into place during her career.That was the focus of our thinking. I will tell you that increasingly people are asking that question.
--Ambassador Joe Wilson
That is why we should ALL be worried about it.
Three cheers for the free press.
uhg.
Ain't it ironic that she is siad to have worked in the area of weapons proliferation... talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Talking Points Exclusive:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
...Bob Novak is is now saying that his source says that Valerie Plame was an "analyst" and not an "operative" at the CIA. Joe Wilson remembers their conversation in July a bit differently.
According to what Wilson told TPM early Monday evening, when Novak first contacted him in July, he told him that he had a CIA source that told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a "CIA operative." ...
So today is/might/ be the only day in his life that Bob claims she was an "analyst" to cover his ass.Washinton Post said "operative". So basically its looking more and more like she was an "operative".
I'm trying to look at the brright side of all this.. Oh yeah. At least he did not accuse her of possibly be a "glorified secretary' like the stone age republican congressman kinston did on crossfire today...
(BRussell, maybe tenet "took a bullet" for the team then, knowing full well he was going to roast JUNIOR's chestnut's on an open fire come christmas...)
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Chestnuts on an open fire come Christmas ".
-------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty good!
How pissed would you be if you're Plame's boss and her cover and her subordinates covers have been blown? Nevermind the years of work that goes into creating sources around the world. Maybe very little harm was done... but the CIA doesn't like when people screw with them.
The CIA said she IS under the Classified status.
from MSNBC:
2ND LETTER AFFIRMED CALL FOR PROBE
Ê Ê Ê ÊCIA lawyers sent the Justice Department an informal notice of the alleged leak in July, two senior officials told NBC News on Monday.
Ê Ê Ê ÊAlthough that letter, which was not signed by CIA Director George Tenet, was not a formal request for an investigation, the Justice Department could have opened one at that point, lawyers said. It remained unclear whether it did so.
Ê Ê Ê ÊCIA lawyers followed up the notification this month by answering 11 questions from the Justice Department, affirming that the womanÕs identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak, the senior officials said.
Ê Ê Ê ÊThe CIA response to the questions, which is itself classified, said there were grounds for a criminal investigation, the sources said.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0cv=CA01
Originally posted by trumptman
My point was that I could no better job of proving the folks posting here look ridiculous than they themselves are doing.
Besides why pick a fight when the people here do so enjoy arguing into the air. Half the posts aren't even to anyone, just screaming about someone did something bad and darn it, it is time for revenge for Clinton.
It's more fun to watch a dog chase it's tail than to argue with it that it shouldn't be a dog. Likewise it's more fun to watch blood thirsty irrational, politically sold out leftist partisans make boobs of themselves than to argue with them as to why they shouldn't be that which they clearly demonstrate.
As for this, I assure you that based off what I have read both from the links here and just around, I'm not worried about it.
Nick
WE CORNERED HIM, again.
Remember, trumptman, the last time you tried arguing without anything on your side? I'm glad the feelings of the right are on the table now. We are "blood thirsty irrational, politically sold out leftist partisans make boobs of themselves ." Wow. Way to contribute, buddy. (as you would invariably say in any one of your 10,000 threads).
Regardless, I'm sure those on the right are angry that senior administration officials have let them down- as they have let down an entire nation regardless of political affiliation. Right?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
WE CORNERED HIM, again.
Remember, trumptman, the last time you tried arguing without anything on your side? I'm glad the feelings of the right are on the table now. We are "blood thirsty irrational, politically sold out leftist partisans make boobs of themselves ." Wow. Way to contribute, buddy. (as you would invariably say in any one of your 10,000 threads).
Regardless, I'm sure those on the right are angry that senior administration officials have let them down- as they have let down an entire nation regardless of political affiliation. Right?
Yes, Shawn except for you forget an important point. I don't call you out into discussions. I don't post and say "Hey Shawn take a shot at this and here's what you are if you don't or haven't."
Or perhaps you have forgotten this little post...
(Scott, SDW, BR, Trumptman....if you all try to spin this, you WILL NOT WIN.)
Shawn, are you playing with those dolls again? Have you been taking the Mr. Trumptman doll and making him argue with you when all the children won't play with you again?
Cornered... last time I argued with nothing on my side. I would love to see that one.
I didn't try to spin this. There hasn't been anything "contributed" by anyone to argue/spin. All we have is an inquiry for information that could lead to a possible investigation by the Department of Justice.
Does that mean Bush, Rove or anyone else is innocent? I would assume so until proven otherwise but heck they could be guilty. Nothing is impossible(though improbable) and at this point we pretty much know nothing. It is all conspiracy theories.
So why argue conspiracy theories with folks who clearly want Bush gone no matter what the cost? I mean there are folks here basically asking whether we should put his head on a wooden stick or on the wrought iron gates of the White House. Let them have their fun. Why should I spoil it?
Let's give Shawn some homework. As a lawyer he should always be able to argue both sides of a case. What fine legal reasoning would you deploy against these fine arguments?
Karl Rove and company outed the wife/ cia agent of the guy that blew the whistle on Junior's 16 word lie. He could have gotten her KILLED~! This is about a BILLION times more treasonous then ANYTHING Clinton ever did.Let's take bets as to how long AG "don't show me boobs" Ashcroft blocks the justice dept from taking action...
Or perhaps this...
If Rove is found guilty, why not give him the chair? Ashcroft & Bush seem to love it.
How about this deductive piece..
Egg-sactlly...
And since we will find K-A-R-L was behind this, (and we all know that K-A-R-L is 50% of Junior's gray matter (cheney being the other 50%)) this is big since its literaly a "heartbeat' away from the president....
Of course Junior can claim ignorance.....
Which the American public WOULD BUY IN A SECOND!
Wow deep...
Well boys it takes a really boldly rotten president to get their attention. The last time this happened it was with Nixon, Watergate, and Vietnam. The sleeping masses only wake up when it becomes super obvious that their leader is a crook and is threatening their way of life.
more...
All of a sudden in an unexpected development Bush develops altzheimers and can't remember a thing.
And...
Junior gonna get a spankin next time he's in Kennebunkport...
Yes I haven't argued, but rather have sat back and enjoyed the rabid replies to the initial post. That and the "exclusives" coming from a writers blog page which are "factual evidence" of wrong doing.
Deep belly laughs... keep'em coming.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Deep belly laughs... keep'em coming.
Criticize what I said if you can. Otherwise don't quote me.
Thanks.
Originally posted by bunge
Criticize what I said if you can. Otherwise don't quote me.
Thanks.
So you want to turn this into a pro/anti-death penalty thread? I know you can't be serious because from what I recall you don't even support the death penalty.
So you prove my point. It is all just hot air. How can I criticize you for claiming Rove should get the death penalty when you don't support the dealth penalty?
Ladies and gentleman, for your viewing pleasure... bunge refuted by... bunge....
But as things stand, I have to say someone must be ignorant or stupid to support it. I mean no offense, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just haven't heard a good defense of the death penalty in light of the corrupt* justice systems.
And this one...
One thought is that when the death penalty exists, someone will be more willing to kill to avoid being caught. This phenomonon now exists in California with the three strikes law. They're finding that a criminal with two strikes is more likely to do whatever it takes to avoid getting caught with the third strike since they have nothing to lose.
I mean as bunge-ling and incapable as the government is in Illinois with death penalty convictions, how could we ever trust them with a errorless defense against a presidental advisor like Rove?
Love ya, mean it...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So you want to turn this into a pro/anti-death penalty thread? I know you can't be serious because from what I recall you don't even support the death penalty.
So you prove my point. It is all just hot air. How can I criticize you for claiming Rove should get the death penalty when you don't support the dealth penalty?
Ladies and gentleman, for your viewing pleasure... bunge refuted by... bunge....
And this one...
I mean as bunge-ling and incapable as the government is in Illinois with death penalty convictions, how could we ever trust them with a errorless defense against a presidental advisor like Rove?
Love ya, mean it...
Nick
Why do you continue to lie? Why can't you just try to be honest for one discussion?
I've said many times I don't support it, but if we are going to have it then I want it used equitably. That means death to any cop caught taking a bribe. Death to the treasonous politicians. Not just death to poor black people. I've said this in other threads but you choose to ignore it (lie) to try and prove a point that you know is incorrect.
Are you done lying yet?
It's common practice to include a link to a quote so others can go and research in context things that people quote here.
http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub
Its so him.
The Nation also published an article on this scandal a few weeks back. Strange how slow the regular media is on to uptake. But mind, Watergate started subtlely, as a small article in the unnoticed backwaters of the newpapers.
According to the article, Karl Rove's real name is Karl Roverer (umlaut over the 'o'). He has dual U.S.-German citizenship, and an an aside, his grandfather was a partner in the Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurbüro AG company that built the Dachenau Nazi concentration camp. (He's not the only grandad of Bush admin. folks who supported N?z? Germany....). The acorn never falls far from the tree.
oi!
Originally posted by bunge
Why do you continue to lie? Why can't you just try to be honest for one discussion?
I've said many times I don't support it, but if we are going to have it then I want it used equitably. That means death to any cop caught taking a bribe. Death to the treasonous politicians. Not just death to poor black people. I've said this in other threads but you choose to ignore it (lie) to try and prove a point that you know is incorrect.
Are you done lying yet?
It's common practice to include a link to a quote so others can go and research in context things that people quote here.
You are amazing in your denseness. You said to criticize my quote of you. I said I couldn't because it wasn't a true characterization of what you believe, even though it was typed by you. I said you don't support the death penalty.
You then say, "you lie" and that you don't support the death penalty.
How is it a lie to say you wouldn't really support the death penalty for Rove for leaking information about an unharmed CIA agent, (not even rape, murder or something else of that nature) when you say yourself that you don't support the death penalty.
Nevermind, as I mentioned, dog's chasing their tails. I should have known better.....Now I'm a LIAR for saying you don't support the death penalty when you admit you don't support it... classic....
Likewise you say that it is applied unevenly. I even said how could you trust the government to make a case strong enough to convict Rove when as you claim yourself, they can only seem to convict poor black folks. You claim it is a lie of omission because you would endorse two wrongs in an attempt to make a right. If anything I truthfully presented your position because you DON'T support the death penalty. If I were going to lie about you, I would distort the two wrongs position into an attempt to portray you as a death penalty supporter of which you are not.
As for the links, you can do the search yourself. User name, bunge, keywords death penalty. You and Shawn should both get off your "guilt by omission" kick. Everyone here has access to the search function, knows your handle, and can type the words death penalty. Nothing is being kept from anyone. If you want me to link to you while using you to refute you, that is your problem and you can link to yourself if you want.(say that three times fast)
Chase that tail boy, chase it....
Nick