Well most US media is liberal and of course this flys against what they were saying previously, when they tried to make it a big deal against the Bush administration.
It's nice to see that a liberal paper like the Washington Post ran this though, you would never see this in the NY Times.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
Originally posted by KzinKiller Um, why would a Post editorial be played up by other media outlets?
Other media outlets shouldn't 'play up a NY Post editorial' as you put it, but one would think that it might be of interest to the public that the prosecutor in the case knew from the beginning who the leaker was, yet put on a show trial to keep up the myth that there was a 'crime' as long as possible. It is criminal what he did. Far moreso than anything that was done that initiated the whole 'investigation'. This was banner headlined when the media thought they could get Cheney or even G-Dub. Now that the truth comes to light... not a peep. But that is no surprise.
I don't think people really care about this anymore. It kind of got played out in the media to the extent that people got sick of hearing about it already. It's like the Clinton affair. Conservatives think we're supposed to still be talking about that for some reason. We're sick of hearing about it. Why don't we hear about Iran/Contra still? I mean do you want to keep beating a dead horse?
Both parties do wrong. And their neck in neck in their betrayal of this country.
All I know is the first time I saw a picture of Wilson and Plame I thought "Joe, you dog" .... he's not exactly George Clooney, but he married a bombshell AND a spy.
Originally posted by Laserwolf Opinion. An incorrect one at that. Try again. it's already pretty much proven that Plame was not "outted" because of Wilson. It's funny cause i did see a segment on the news today. A few people said that Armitage being the guy pretty much proves against the "attack on Wilson" but the democratic 'strategist' still says the same thing... and other guests just laugh in his face.
Originally posted by Jorev Well most US media is liberal and of course this flys against what they were saying previously, when they tried to make it a big deal against the Bush administration. It's nice to see that a liberal paper like the Washington Post ran this though, you would never see this in the NY Times.
I love it when cons say this. It makes them look like fool. They've been saying this for years especially about iraq when everyone is true. Armatage is still part of the administration
Originally posted by hazmats Originally posted by Laserwolf Opinion. An incorrect one at that. Try again. it's already pretty much proven that Plame was not "outted" because of Wilson. It's funny cause i did see a segment on the news today. A few people said that Armitage being the guy pretty much proves against the "attack on Wilson" but the democratic 'strategist' still says the same thing... and other guests just laugh in his face.
Plame was still outed. A crime WAS commited.
I remember when Clinton got a bj 100 million was spent to get to the bottom of that.
Originally posted by KzinKiller All I know is the first time I saw a picture of Wilson and Plame I thought "Joe, you dog" .... he's not exactly George Clooney, but he married a bombshell AND a spy.
Hehe, I will agree with you... she is kinda hot, especially for an older woman... and Joe Wilson definitely married above his 'pay grade'.
Originally posted by reavo I don't think people really care about this anymore. It kind of got played out in the media to the extent that people got sick of hearing about it already. It's like the Clinton affair. Conservatives think we're supposed to still be talking about that for some reason. We're sick of hearing about it. Why don't we hear about Iran/Contra still? I mean do you want to keep beating a dead horse? Both parties do wrong. And their neck in neck in their betrayal of this country.
Of course you don't Reavo. It throws a wrench into the whole 'Saddam wasn't trying to get uranium from Niger' argument you guys used to oppose the Iraq war. It also allowed you to make more false accusations against the administration. When the light of truth is shone on it all, you want to pretend it didn't happen. It's no surprise. As far as betrayal of this country, your willingness to go along with it all when it suits you shows that the pathetic, impotent party of Libertarianism and their minions are just as willing to part with truth to get their aims. Take your BS and shove it... LOL
Originally posted by Kootur Originally posted by Jorev Well most US media is liberal and of course this flys against what they were saying previously, when they tried to make it a big deal against the Bush administration. It's nice to see that a liberal paper like the Washington Post ran this though, you would never see this in the NY Times.
I love it when cons say this. It makes them look like fool. They've been saying this for years especially about iraq when everyone is true. Armatage is still part of the administration Armitage is a member of the State Department, not a part of the White House, which was where the Libs said the leak came from, despite the fact that Robert Novak said all along that his source was not from within the White House.
Originally posted by Kootur Originally posted by hazmats Originally posted by Laserwolf Opinion. An incorrect one at that. Try again. it's already pretty much proven that Plame was not "outted" because of Wilson. It's funny cause i did see a segment on the news today. A few people said that Armitage being the guy pretty much proves against the "attack on Wilson" but the democratic 'strategist' still says the same thing... and other guests just laugh in his face.
Plame was still outed. A crime WAS commited.
I remember when Clinton got a bj 100 million was spent to get to the bottom of that.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on what 'crime' was commited?
Originally posted by honzolo Originally posted by reavo I don't think people really care about this anymore. It kind of got played out in the media to the extent that people got sick of hearing about it already. It's like the Clinton affair. Conservatives think we're supposed to still be talking about that for some reason. We're sick of hearing about it. Why don't we hear about Iran/Contra still? I mean do you want to keep beating a dead horse? Both parties do wrong. And their neck in neck in their betrayal of this country.
Of course you don't Reavo. It throws a wrench into the whole 'Saddam wasn't trying to get uranium from Niger' argument you guys used to oppose the Iraq war. It also allowed you to make more false accusations against the administration. When the light of truth is shone on it all, you want to pretend it didn't happen. It's no surprise. As far as betrayal of this country, your willingness to go along with it all when it suits you shows that the pathetic, impotent party of Libertarianism and their minions are just as willing to part with truth to get their aims. Take your BS and shove it... LOL
I was under the impression that Bush and crew have admitted to the fact that there was no yellowcake being sold to Iraq and that Bush's statement was made on shoddy evidence. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess I expect most people to have some degree of awareness about issues they talk about.
The truth is that this was very important. I always said "Dont blame Rove and Cheney until its proven that they were the ones who did it. If they did do it, they should stand in front of a firing squad." Outing a CIA operative is TREASON. George Bush Senior (a guy I actually like and have respect for) would have certainly called this treason. A government official committing treason is disgusting. How can you defend that? If you do, you are an un-American piece of garbage.
So what that this guy was responsible and not Cheney or Rove. I would like to see him hang.
Originally posted by honzolo Originally posted by Kootur Originally posted by Jorev Well most US media is liberal and of course this flys against what they were saying previously, when they tried to make it a big deal against the Bush administration. It's nice to see that a liberal paper like the Washington Post ran this though, you would never see this in the NY Times.
I love it when cons say this. It makes them look like fool. They've been saying this for years especially about iraq when everyone is true. Armatage is still part of the administration Armitage is a member of the State Department, not a part of the White House, which was where the Libs said the leak came from, despite the fact that Robert Novak said all along that his source was not from within the White House.
He wasn't millers source neither was he the one from time.
Originally posted by honzolo Originally posted by reavo I don't think people really care about this anymore. It kind of got played out in the media to the extent that people got sick of hearing about it already. It's like the Clinton affair. Conservatives think we're supposed to still be talking about that for some reason. We're sick of hearing about it. Why don't we hear about Iran/Contra still? I mean do you want to keep beating a dead horse? Both parties do wrong. And their neck in neck in their betrayal of this country.
Of course you don't Reavo. It throws a wrench into the whole 'Saddam wasn't trying to get uranium from Niger' argument you guys used to oppose the Iraq war. It also allowed you to make more false accusations against the administration. When the light of truth is shone on it all, you want to pretend it didn't happen. It's no surprise. As far as betrayal of this country, your willingness to go along with it all when it suits you shows that the pathetic, impotent party of Libertarianism and their minions are just as willing to part with truth to get their aims. Take your BS and shove it... LOL Saddam wasn't trying to get uranium from niger. That has been proven time and time again.
<<I was under the impression that Bush and crew have admitted to the fact that there was no yellowcake being sold to Iraq and that Bush's statement was made on shoddy evidence. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess I expect most people to have some degree of awareness about issues they talk about. The truth is that this was very important. I always said "Dont blame Rove and Cheney until its proven that they were the ones who did it. If they did do it, they should stand in front of a firing squad." Outing a CIA operative is TREASON. George Bush Senior (a guy I actually like and have respect for) would have certainly called this treason. A government official committing treason is disgusting. How can you defend that? If you do, you are an un-American piece of garbage. So what that this guy was responsible and not Cheney or Rove. I would like to see him hang. >>
Bush's statement on the yellowcake was based on british intelligence, and they, to this day stand by that intelligence. They didn't end up getting their hands on the 'yellowcake'. Joe Wilson went there to debunk the whole thing. Joe Wilson was a diplomat, not an expert on the issue at all. He was sent there, came back, filed an oral report instead of a written report, then went straight to the NY Times to thwart the administration. He never bothered to look for any evidence when he went to Niger. While its nice of you to say "don't blame Rove and Cheney until its proven that they were the oes who did it..." the fact is that no crime was committed in this case at all. Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent. She hadn't been undercover in over 5 years which is the standard to be qualified as a 'covert' agent. That is precisely why no charges at all have been filed in the entire case, aside from a procedural charge resulting from a witness' testimony... there was no crime and the prosecutor knew it. He just knew he could keep it in the news for a while to damage the administration, counting on the average persons laziness and ignorance not to see through it all or try to understand it. I would think that someone who wants to send someone else to the firing squad, as you put it, would bother to get an understanding first as to whether a crime was actually committed, and know the standard by which it is judged. I would say that wanting to put someone in front of a firing squad based on false allegations would make you an 'un-American piece of garbage'. Armitage was an anti-war type who are prevalant in the State Department, and I'm sure you would have much more sympathy for him knowing that. He made a mistake, but committed no crime. Period.
Originally posted by honzolo Originally posted by reavo I don't think people really care about this anymore. It kind of got played out in the media to the extent that people got sick of hearing about it already. It's like the Clinton affair. Conservatives think we're supposed to still be talking about that for some reason. We're sick of hearing about it. Why don't we hear about Iran/Contra still? I mean do you want to keep beating a dead horse? Both parties do wrong. And their neck in neck in their betrayal of this country.
Of course you don't Reavo. It throws a wrench into the whole 'Saddam wasn't trying to get uranium from Niger' argument you guys used to oppose the Iraq war. It also allowed you to make more false accusations against the administration. When the light of truth is shone on it all, you want to pretend it didn't happen. It's no surprise. As far as betrayal of this country, your willingness to go along with it all when it suits you shows that the pathetic, impotent party of Libertarianism and their minions are just as willing to part with truth to get their aims. Take your BS and shove it... LOL
I am really confused by your statement. Could you please attempt to explain what you mean a little more?
And I'm also confused by what you mean about the "impotent party of Libertarianism." The way I look at it we are completely honest in our intentions. When a Libertarian gets elected into a government position you can bet they will do what they say the are planning on doing. We say we are for less government, more personal liberties, and freedom for people to decide what is right for them and their family. We get elected and that's what we pursue.
Republicans on the other hand... What do they stand for right now? Are they for smaller government? I don't see them pursuing that goal. Are they for less intrusive government into peoples lives? I don't see them pursuing that either. And they can claim they are for protection of Americans but it seems most Americans aren't even buying into their foreign policies anymore.
I would call the Republican party an impotent party when they can't even live up to what their party stands for.
Comments
Well most US media is liberal and of course this flys against what they were saying previously, when they tried to make it a big deal against the Bush administration.
It's nice to see that a liberal paper like the Washington Post ran this though, you would never see this in the NY Times.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
Now if only they could disprove 100s of other idiotic things Bush did we can immortalise him on mount rushmore.
It's better be hated for who you are, than loved for who you aren't.
Um, why would a Post editorial be played up by other media outlets?
I don't think people really care about this anymore. It kind of got played out in the media to the extent that people got sick of hearing about it already. It's like the Clinton affair. Conservatives think we're supposed to still be talking about that for some reason. We're sick of hearing about it. Why don't we hear about Iran/Contra still? I mean do you want to keep beating a dead horse?
Both parties do wrong. And their neck in neck in their betrayal of this country.
I think Mr. Wilson (among others) deserves this: Carlos, take it away!
Opinion. An incorrect one at that. Try again.
Plame was still outed. A crime WAS commited.
I remember when Clinton got a bj 100 million was spent to get to the bottom of that.
Armitage is a member of the State Department, not a part of the White House, which was where the Libs said the leak came from, despite the fact that Robert Novak said all along that his source was not from within the White House.
Plame was still outed. A crime WAS commited.
I remember when Clinton got a bj 100 million was spent to get to the bottom of that.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on what 'crime' was commited?
I was under the impression that Bush and crew have admitted to the fact that there was no yellowcake being sold to Iraq and that Bush's statement was made on shoddy evidence. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess I expect most people to have some degree of awareness about issues they talk about.
The truth is that this was very important. I always said "Dont blame Rove and Cheney until its proven that they were the ones who did it. If they did do it, they should stand in front of a firing squad." Outing a CIA operative is TREASON. George Bush Senior (a guy I actually like and have respect for) would have certainly called this treason. A government official committing treason is disgusting. How can you defend that? If you do, you are an un-American piece of garbage.
So what that this guy was responsible and not Cheney or Rove. I would like to see him hang.
Armitage is a member of the State Department, not a part of the White House, which was where the Libs said the leak came from, despite the fact that Robert Novak said all along that his source was not from within the White House.
He wasn't millers source neither was he the one from time.
Saddam wasn't trying to get uranium from niger. That has been proven time and time again.
I am really confused by your statement. Could you please attempt to explain what you mean a little more?
And I'm also confused by what you mean about the "impotent party of Libertarianism." The way I look at it we are completely honest in our intentions. When a Libertarian gets elected into a government position you can bet they will do what they say the are planning on doing. We say we are for less government, more personal liberties, and freedom for people to decide what is right for them and their family. We get elected and that's what we pursue.
Republicans on the other hand... What do they stand for right now? Are they for smaller government? I don't see them pursuing that goal. Are they for less intrusive government into peoples lives? I don't see them pursuing that either. And they can claim they are for protection of Americans but it seems most Americans aren't even buying into their foreign policies anymore.
I would call the Republican party an impotent party when they can't even live up to what their party stands for.