Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey libs. If you guys had any class you would simnply admit you are wrong and move on here. What is it with you people that you never can face reality? I hope you all go after Armitage now the same way you went after Rove and Cheney because we all know you are only upset about that poor CIA agent Valerie Plame having her very life endangered by having her name spoken in Vanity Fair...errr... a Bob Novak story. I have to admit, this is all really, really funny to see the left have another sure fire scandal go uop in Plames...err, flames. What a bunch of suckers.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<If Armitage really didn't have any malicious intent, it's a helluva coincidence that he happened to be gossiping about the exact same thing as a bunch of other people who did have malicious intent," he write>> See, this is what I am talking about regarding the mental illness of the left. What malicious intent? I swear these people live in their own world of pot and rainbows.
Originally Posted By Tiggirl I know I don't post much here in this section but I do read quite a bit and it seems to me the "libs" have moved on. It wasn't "libs" who drug up (no less than) three threads that hadn't been posted in in 10 months... Seems to me, its not the "libs" who are having problems moving on. *shrug* ~Beth
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Well Beth, the " libs " pushed this bogus story for years on here then all of a sudden go totally silent when the case is cracked? They deserve a little bit of ribbing. But now I see them actually STILL hanging on to the conspiracy even after all the cards are on the table. That is just plain sad and really shows what these people are really all about. A little bit of honesty and integrity would be nice. But hey, these people stood by their hero, the liar BJ CLinton to the end also.
Originally Posted By Tiggirl To me it came across as petty. And I would view it the same if it was a "lib" pulling up miltiple threads from the past on the same subject in order to "rib" someone else. If you want to discuss the outcome, how about creating *one* new topic. I would imagine you'd get a much better response and a better discussion... unless of course that's not what you're looking for? Three old topics (all with the same comment no less) was rather callow in my eyes (Sorry, Dug) and it makes those "rallying" behind the poster doing such come off as juvenile as well. If you keep asking for people to "get over it" perhaps the best course of action is to follow your own advice. ~Beth
Originally Posted By Tiggirl Exscuse me... yor words were "move on" not "get over it". My mistake. However I think the idea in my last sentence remains the same. ~Beth
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Funny, I started a new thread when the Slate article came out, and added other related stories from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and others, and it has pretty well been ignored..... (12 posts, 6 of them mine) <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-79202-P-1&Refresh=0830082502" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-79202-P-1&Refresh=0830082502</a>
Originally Posted By Shooba If someone wanted to respond to a news article, they'd write a letter to the editor. Maybe if you were capable of coming up with your own thoughts for once, people would respond.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan But you simply posted a series of quotes of others, with none of your own commentary. How should one respond to that? It's never totally clear if you are posting the links because the writers are expressing what you'd like to say, because you don't add your own comments. If you want a discussion, generally you launch one by saying something, no? And what followed wasn't a discussion -- it was Beaumandy bleating as usual, looking to rub someone's face in... whatever. Because while his man Rove was cleared of this, Beaumandy was merely cheerleading all along, not basing his 'predictions' on anything but partisan loyalty. Now he wants to appear that he was 'right' -- but he'd be just as 'right' if he chose red to win in a game of Roulette and won. Some on the conservative side here must have missed the "ifs" and other qualifiers that people have been posting all along. Go back and read the posts. Beaumandy never allowed the possibility that anyone could have 'possibly' done anything wrong. And while I have no doubt many on the left would be happy to see Rove caught up in this, most posts including "ifs" and other such qualifiers that he ignored then, and assigned positions to various posters that they never took.
Originally Posted By jonvn That's what happens when people don't bother to think for themselves, but simply parrot whatever commentator (often Rush) that they think sounds good. That's what we keep seeing. No individual thought, just the parroting of someone else. It's really pretty empty and meaningless. But it does show that a good deal of people on the right simply do not give a shred of thought to any of this. They just hear what someone says, and they agree, and that's it. No thinking at all. I guess that is what is required to be in the right wing these days.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Some on the conservative side here must have missed the "ifs" and other qualifiers that people have been posting all along. Go back and read the posts." I challenged Duggie to go back and dig up any post that averred Rove was guilty. He refused. All the threads that were needlessly dug (!) up ALL had qualifiers. They believe their own crap, they really do.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's the same story, over and over. No basis in fact for nearly anything they say.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Beaumandy was merely cheerleading all along, not basing his 'predictions' on anything but partisan loyalty. Now he wants to appear that he was 'right' -- but he'd be just as 'right' if he chose red to win in a game of Roulette and won.>> << That's what we keep seeing. No individual thought, just the parroting of someone else. It's really pretty empty and meaningless. >> Some of us on here posted hundreds of posts explaining why Plame was not undercover, why JoweWilson was a liar, why Rove was going to walk, why Fitzgerald was a hack, and why this was a huge non story that was going to go no where. NOW it was jsut a GUESS that we parroted from others?? Libs.. moderates...hack lawyers...please just admit you were wrong, you wanted to nail Rove and Cheney so bad you ignored the obvious facts and you were suckers. Why make yourselves look even more dense. We have a dozen threads showing your ignorance in all it's glory over the last 2 years.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>If you want to discuss the outcome, how about creating *one* new topic.<< Hi Tiggirl-- nice to see a pleasant face here in the morass that is World Events. Actually, two perfectly valid threads about the Armitage story were created , and (as pointed out above) completely ignored. <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-79108-P-1&Refresh=0830183327" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-79108-P-1&Refresh=0830183327</a> (Just a Plame Waste of Time-- Posted Sunday, and nary a comment from the usual suspects.) <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/de" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de</a> fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-79202-P-1&Refresh=0830082502 (Great SLATE Article re Plamegate-- Posted Tuesday and, again, initially ignored.) Now, for months any scrap that implied that sinister figures within the Bush Administration were involved was siezed upon and commented on ad infinitum. (Complete, of course, with any number of "ifs," "buts," and "perhapses." When I do that, it's refered to as "being smarmy.") >>If someone wanted to respond to a news article, they'd write a letter to the editor.<< Or, post it here and expect a response. It's been done over and over again by posters from across the spectrum. >>If you want a discussion, generally you launch one by saying something, no?<< That's true of you and me, 2ny. But that doesn't mean it's some sort of requisite. And others also sometimes launch with just a link and a quote. >>That's what we keep seeing. No individual thought, just the parroting of someone else. It's really pretty empty and meaningless. << About as empty and meaningless as simply calling someone names, rather than responding to the topic at hand. >>I challenged Duggie to go back and dig up any post that averred Rove was guilty.<< (There's some of that name calling I refered to. BTW.) Asked and answered, my friend. It's a previous post, and you may have the privilege of digging it up on your own. But, for a succinct reply, how is this? From, uh, Predictions, which is THIS VERY THREAD! <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68692-P-1&Refresh=0830180517" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68692-P-1&Refresh=0830180517</a> >>Rove indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury.<< >>All the threads that were needlessly dug (!) up ALL had qualifiers.<< Yes, they were all quite smarmy (!) Here is about as fine an example as I would cite. (Again, from THIS VERY THREAD [!]): >>What does fuel any speculation on my part is how many times someone goes before a grand jury. The more they do, the adage "where there's smoke, there's fire" comes into play. Since Rove and Libby made more appearances than others, it is not unreasonable to think that they're in trouble.<< <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68692-P-4&Refresh=0830180517" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68692-P-4&Refresh=0830180517</a> >>It's the same story, over and over. No basis in fact for nearly anything they say.<< And if anyone had bothered to respond to the FACT that Novak's source had been positively identified as Armitage, none of this would have spun out in quite this way, eh? Eh?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And others also sometimes launch with just a link and a quote.<< But all I'm saying is, that to say the threads were 'ignored' isn't quite accurate. They were simply posts containing information widely spread via the dreaded 'mainstream media' with no addition 'point' on which anyone could respond. Add to it that it was Beau once again thumping his chest and cranking out the usual 'libs this, libs that' jive, and I mean, what is there to discuss? I'm not saying the ISSUE isn't worthy of discussion. But starting the ball rolling requires someone saying something, making a point. >>And if anyone had bothered to respond to the FACT that Novak's source had been positively identified as Armitage, none of this would have spun out in quite this way, eh?<< Well, myself, I;m waiting to see what Armitage himself says. If I were to say anything now it's that this sort of 'gossip' is mighty careless of someone in a security position. Why on earth would he give up an agent's name, especially if he wasn't 100% sure it was okay to do so? That's pretty incompetant if you ask me, perhaps criminal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Complete, of course, with any number of "ifs," "buts," and "perhapses."<< Thank you for noticing that. Now please explain it to Beau, who somehow missed them all along.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But all I'm saying is, that to say the threads were 'ignored' isn't quite accurate.<< It's quite accurate. >>They were simply posts containing information widely spread via the dreaded 'mainstream media' with no addition 'point' on which anyone could respond. Add to it that it was Beau once again thumping his chest and cranking out the usual 'libs this, libs that' jive, and I mean, what is there to discuss?<< So which is it? Posts with "no point," or posts with a point that was deemed disagreeable? Either way, the posts were ignored. And no one has to respond to anything, of course. >>Now please explain it to Beau...<< I am sorry, but explaining things to Beau is like asking cats not to chase birds.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So which is it? Posts with "no point," or posts with a point that was deemed disagreeable?<< Both, actually. First post was an excerpt from an article with no commentary by the poster. Next up was Beau cat-calling. There you go.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I have to admit, I got a little carried away yesterday with the " chest thumping ". Sorry. I thought about what a jerk I was being as I was at the Journey - Def Lepard concert. LOL It's just that this story was in the top 3 debates ever on World Events in the last 2 years. We finally have a mystery that is solved. The game is over. The only thing that matters is that Rove, Cheney or the White house didn't leak her name as revenge for what Joe Wilson said. Her status, Joe Wilson being a liar and other parts of the story don't even matter now. The story WAS a story because Rove was accused of leaking for name because "honest" Joe Wilson wrote an "accurate story" about what he found in Niger. That has been proven to not be the case.
